Thus spake "David Mitchell" <[email protected]> on 10/9/14 1:32 AM:
><snip> >I do feel that much of modern origami is driven by (several different >kinds >of) dissatisfaction with what just folding paper can do rather than an >acceptance of its inherent limitations (which are what make origami >different and special). That is surely why we use foil, dampen the paper >to >mould it, glue (or soak it in glue), crumple and strive, among other >things, for complexity, verisimilitude and permanency. There is, of >course, >nothing inherently wrong with any of these things, any more than there is >with using cuts, but, to me they are not the heart of origami. I have very much enjoyed people's thoughts on my original question (about terminology) and on the issues such as "what is the heart of origami" that were raised in response. Since it is an art form (or "only a craft," as some prefer), it is primarily judged on aesthetic criteria, for which there are no absolute standards. But like Dave, I feel that "it is possible to find criteria by which...good origami...can be judged." Still, we're almost certainly going to disagree on what those criteria are! For myself, one of the things I love about origami is its diversity, and I judge different works by different standards. A simple Robinson fold, an elegant Montroll design, a supercomplex Kamiya artwork: these are all beautiful examples of origami, and I can't imagine trying to compare or rank them by some common set of criteria. I do regret that Yoshizawa, who (among other things) used foil, dampened the paper, glued paper, coated paper in glue, and strove for complexity, verisimilitude and permanency, could not be a part of this discussion, as I'm sure he would have had strong opinions on what is and is not "the heart of origami." Robert
