Hi Tung, very quickly. All of your links are related to us origamists. Is there anyone who is not an origamist who has defined origami as art, or is it only us, folders and creators, who define origami as art?
I think origami can (and should) be its own thing, like photography should > be its own thing > This is a reasonable statement, but do you really think that we, origamists, are those who can and should "elevate" origami from a technique to an art form? I believe (but I could be wrong) that photography was included among the visual arts when the international community of artists and in general art lovers (and also galleries, merchants, art curators, art fairs organizers...) began to appreciate and define it as such. That's my impression. In our frenetic contemporary world, where everything moves at the speed of light, we origami artists feel an extreme need to accelerate the natural evolution of origami and almost 'impose' it as an art form on the outside world. I don't like this, excuse me for saying so. I find it inappropriate, artificial, satisfying the personal egos of some, and I find it jeopardises the natural development and growth of origami. Do we really need to seek out those spotlights that we would like to illuminate this self-styled new art form? If that happens, I would like it to be because the world out there discovers us, gradually and over time (perhaps even in a generation). Instead, it seems that we are all in a mad rush. Lorenzo Lorenzo Lucioni Duesseldorf - Germany [email protected]
