Thus spake "Origami on behalf of Dawn Tucker via Origami"
<origami-boun...@lists.digitalorigami.com on behalf of
origami@lists.digitalorigami.com> on 10/2/17, 10:06 AM:
>>>
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 don’t think it was a consensus that GVO doesn’t “meet the definition of
origami.” Looking through the replies:
Diana Lee: It is “a form of origami.”
Me: It is “a specific style of modular origami.”
Sunil: It’s not origami.
Miranda: doesn’t address whether it meets the definition.
Laura: notes an “instinctive rejection,” but doesn’t claim it doesn’t meet the
definition.
Uyen: comments, but doesn’t address whether it meets the definition.
So, there’s not really a consensus; in fact, there seems to be quite a
diversity of opinion. And those (like me) who say “I don’t find this art form
interesting” are not making any definitional claims; we’re just saying whether
we like it, and why.
>>>
My question is this: Who decided (and when) that cutting and gluing keeps a
folded piece from being called origami?
<<<
I think various individuals have made assertions over the years as to what
constitutes “origami”, but they’re all just giving their own opinion, which is,
indirectly, an assertion about what the definition of “origami” ought to be.
But there is no official body that gets to decide that; there is no Pope or
Prophet of origami whose revelations are law; and there is pretty clearly no
consensus among its practitioners. The definition I like to use is “origami is
a form of sculpture in which folding is the primary means of creating the
form.” I invite anyone who likes that definition to use it, but I don’t claim
any authority for it; that’s just what the term means to me as an artist.
>>>
But back to my question: Who decided origami couldn't be cut or glued, and
where, and when?
<<<
So to address your question: I personally don’t know, and it’s not terribly
important to me. I observe (as you did) that many who make such assertions are
sufficiently ignorant of history that their restrictive definitions of origami
would exclude the art form as practiced by widely recognized historical masters
of the art (e.g., Yoshizawa). So yes, there may be a few folks who make such
assertions, but I don’t think we need to give them much weight.
Regards,
Robert
