It seems as though the consensus (so far) is that "Golden Venture Origami" is a an enjoyable paper craft that, for a variety of reasons, doesn't meet with definition of origami, as least as practiced by those who took the time to reply. I'm OK with that. I've seen some pretty things made from the Golden Venture units, but it doesn't appeal to me. However, I'm a "fold and let fold" sort of person. If you want to do it, just know that some will agree and some will disagree on whether or not what you're making is origami. Some will say it's a matter of semantics, and other will argue on the principles of it. Fold what you like, and enjoy! My post is in response to the comment by Sunil Dhavalikar, who argued against Golden Venture as origami, but for kusudama(s?) and free-form folding. He concluded with:"With that in mind, the free form shaping is stillorigami as long it produces the result just by folding, without cutting or gluing.
Having said that, I also enjoy golden Venture ?origami? and so does my nephew who received a 3D ?Minion? from me on his Birthday." My question is this: Who decided (and when) that cutting and gluing keeps a folded piece from being called origami? I've got origami books, written by those we consider to be origami masters, venerable Japanese folders, whose instructions include a little snip here, a drop of glue there... There are traditional origami models (perhaps hundreds of years older than those who would question them) that require a small cut or a piece of tape. Why do so many now say those models don't meet the definition of origami, and say so as if it were the gospel of folding? I'm not arguing with Sunil, as he certainly isn't the first person to make the point, but rather I'm responding to his comment. My question is about the history of the "No scissors, no glue" [or tape or staples] philosophy of origami. I recently attended a convention where a boy of perhaps 12 constantly heckled any teacher who mentioned the benefits on a well-placed drop of glue, or any cutting - even when it was a matter of cutting the paper to size. Personally, I'll admit I'm disappointed when I fall in love with a finished model and then find it requires cutting or adhesives, but I wouldn't say that it doesn't meet the definition of origami. (Nor was I raised to make my opinions known in such a rude manner (speaking of the 12-year old, not Sunil), but that's a rant for a different forum. Or maybe not. Perhaps our gatherings SHOULD include some definitions of politeness, respect (for instructors or anyone with whom we disagree on the definition of origami), and classroom decorum. But back to my question: Who decided origami couldn't be cut or glued, and where, and when? Dawn
