Hi Gerardo, Hans, Unfortunately, I didn't receive Hans's reply (I also checked my spam folder), meaning the ML mail server must have failed to dispatch it to me. Thanks, Gerardo, for pointing it out. I'll answer a few points below, also at Gerardo's request, but I think I'll stop here, because it's probably a topic that's of interest only to me.
Personally, my concept of art is much more stringent than Hans has portrayed. For example Hans wrote: > Sometimes in origami we see one person excelling in designing origami > models at intricate levels of detail, but another person to fold a model > exquisitely, making the model a piece of art. For me, that tends to involve manual skill, observation skills, the ability to translate nature onto paper (when, for example, folding an animal), and things like that... but not necessarily an artist, and not necessarily art. There's a difference between folding beautiful origami and creating art, for many reasons, including (but not limited to) those I mentioned in my previous email. In essence, I have the impression that we easily confuse mastery and executive ability with artistic gesture and art itself. As a frequent visitor to contemporary art venues, spaces, and fairs, I recognize that this confusion isn't unique to origami, of course. A pole stuck in the ground can have enormous artistic value, yet be a terribly poor and "ugly" object to look at (even if it is not conceptual art at all, but still figurative art). Because the concept of art is something very different from what people generally think of. It goes without saying that the ease (and superficiality) with which one attributes artistic value to origami clearly shows how much ignorance there is in the artistic field. I would also like to point out that, generally speaking, the art world is ahead of its time and human trends, and if even today there have not yet been consolidated examples of Origami and Origamists "elevated" to Art and Artist status, we can (should) deduce that for contemporary artistic sensibility origami is not (yet) a technique with which to create art on a large scale (except, obviously, in some limited cases). The fact that the attribution of art comes from within (from us origamists) unfortunately doesn't mean much, because what constitutes art is decided by humanity (as well as the market), not by us involved players. Moreover, I have the impression that origami will probably never be recognized as an excellent artistic technique, because contemporary art is increasingly less visual and more conceptual, and the various artistic sensibilities and expressive forms are increasingly conceptual. Hans wrote: > A note on terminology: The word "art" can both mean "skill" and > "(aesthetic) objects produced through skill and imagination". Thus a book > called "The art of drawing" is not about drawings that are art, but about > drawing skills, techniques, and a book called "The Art of Folding" > explaining skills and techniques for doing origami is named appropriately. What you write is certainly correct, but you write it because you've stopped to think about that question, or perhaps you've looked up the various definitions of "Art." For the rest of the origamists out there, unfortunately, a book "The Art of Origami" (even more when written by a pioneer like Randlett) means nothing more than that Origami is Art. And hence, for me, the absolute necessity of being firm and radical in our positions and attributions; otherwise, confusion takes over, and anything and its opposite applies. Hans wrote: > Origami is a noun, and so "The Art of Origami" could be about the skills > and techniques, and another book called "The Art of Origami" could contain > actual art works by renowned origami artists like Fuse, Garibi, Lang or > others, just like an art book with paintings. Here's another example: of the three names mentioned, I can immediately recognize artistic value in the artifacts of only one of the three creatives, and not for most of his career. For the rest, I would call them Masters or Artisans or whatever you like, but definitely not Artists. Gerardo wrote: > Now, I am more interested in a point you made in your original email, > Lorenzo: 'I consider it extremely important for an aspect that I believe to > be pivotal in the evolution of origami, which is the deep respect we must > have for ourselves and for origami itself, and to avoid praising origami by > attributing a value of "art."' I would love to hear more about the concept > of origami as a non-artistic practice and its evolution. Your ideas are > enticing, and I would greatly appreciate it if you could elaborate on this > aspect. Gerardo, I'm afraid I don't fully understand what you mean. One reason why I don't think it's appropriate to attribute artistic value to origami regardless is certainly the risk of distorting its nature as an exciting (for us) creative and performative technique, driven as we are by the desire to see art (and at the many European conferences I attend every year—six or seven this year—I assure you, there are quite a few people who "see" art everywhere). As a technique, it has enormous potential, and its evolution, in my opinion, should be precisely in a technical and concrete sense, free from artistic expectations. I don't have much more to say, other than simply calling things by their proper name, because words are very important, and if you use them wisely, you have an excellent chance of continuing to appreciate, value, and develop what you've called by its proper name, free from malice and exploitation, often stemming from the egos of individuals. As I think I've already written, one of the reasons we tend to see origami as art is that origami seems fantastic to us. We unconsciously fail to understand why others might not like it, and so we force ourselves to define it as art to give it a "universal" value, according to which it should also please others, or at least be recognized as something valuable. Contemporary man is increasingly less humble and more pretentious, and realizing that origami doesn't mean much to other people... can be hurtful. If we "spoil" ourselves by thinking of ourselves as artists or frequenters of an artistic context... in my opinion we are not doing any good to ourselves and to origami. Regards, Lorenzo On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 at 04:50, Gerardo via Origami < [email protected]> wrote: > Thank you Lorenzo for answering my questions, and Hans for sharing more > insights. > > I want to add that there’s a tendency to value art as 'something that is > created with imagination and skill and that is beautiful or that expresses > important ideas or feelings' more highly than art as 'an activity that > requires special knowledge or skill' (both definitions are from The > Britannica Dictionary). Eric Kenneway in *Complete Origami* distinguishes > between these meanings by using a capital 'A' for the former and a > lowercase 'a' for the latter, reflecting this hierarchy. However, this > valuation is not a universal truth. In this regard, I recommend the book *The > Craftsman* by Richard Sennett, which highlights the unrecognized > importance and beauty of the abilities or skills 'involved in doing or > making something' (Longman Dictionary). Not so long ago, I started to sense > something that I think has been obvious to many other paper folders: > origami yields a performative force. Through its selfless sharing, it tries > to question capitalism—a la Michele de Certeau in *The Practice of > Everyday Life*—and the canons of Art; this book explores how ordinary > practices like origami challenge dominant cultural narratives in subtle > ways. Origami also seems to have a performative character in the > step-sequences that are shared with others and the effect they generate in > those who follow through. The following online description of a fellow > origamist expresses these ideas well: 'While admiring colleagues' > aspirations to fine art, he believes origami is a people's art and finds > more beauty in the casual sharing of models than in a gallery. > > Now, I am more interested in a point you made in your original email, > Lorenzo: 'I consider it extremely important for an aspect that I believe to > be pivotal in the evolution of origami, which is the deep respect we must > have for ourselves and for origami itself, and to avoid praising origami by > attributing a value of "art."' I would love to hear more about the concept > of origami as a non-artistic practice and its evolution. Your ideas are > enticing, and I would greatly appreciate it if you could elaborate on this > aspect. > > > Thanks in advance. > > -- > > *Gerardo G.* > gerardo(a)neorigami.com <http://www.neorigami.com> > [image: Image] instagram.com/NeorigamiCom > *Knowledge and Curiosity in Origami:* > *six private** classe**s online* <https://www.neorigami.com/classes> > > "(...) It doesn’t happen often, but when it does, it takes your breath > away and fills you with the true joy of *origami*. I experienced this in > my lessons with Gerardo G. I wouldn’t trade it for anything. Gerardo is > (...)" *C. R.* *Read the full review* > <https://www.neorigami.com/classes#h.q2mt4npahmc2> > > -- Lorenzo Lucioni Duesseldorf - Germany [email protected]
