If Robert is collecting opinions I am happy to offer one. It's an interesting question that goes to the heart of what origami is.
I always use the term design for the ... ahem ... design part of origami and realisation for the folding bit. I think it's useful to make a distinction between the designer (who designs) and the folder (who realises the design) even if they are the same person. Why I don't use 'folds' instead of 'realises' I'm not quite sure ... perhaps because there is more to realisation than just folding ... particularly the choice of paper. Although I know it's widely used now, I personally don't like the term origami artist. No,let me be clear. I really dislike it! It smacks to me of not being satisfied with what origami actually is and the uniqueness of what it can do and of trying to make origami into something it isn't. I usually call myself a paperfolder, a paperfolding designer or, less often, an origami designer ... because that's what I do. I design paperfolds. If I made spades I would probably call myself a spade maker. (Unless I made particularly wonderful spades that were useless for digging with ... in which case I would probably call myself a spade artist). And now to go off thread slightly ... sorry, Robert! ... it seems to me that this is part of a wider debate (or non-debate since it doesn't seem to have happened yet) about what origami should be. To me, much of modern origami (starting with Yoshizawa as most things do) is born from a dissatisfaction with what paperfolding is and can do. We want more realistic realisations. We want what we do to have artistic status. We want to find ways to give paperfolds permanency. Etc etc. There's nothing wrong with this ... but to me it misses the point of what origami is about. Dave
