Re: [Origami] On the subject of what constitutes origami

[Michael LaFosse]

From: Dawn Tucker via Origami 


 To: "origami@lists.digitalorigami.com"  
 Sent: Monday, October 2, 2017 8:40 PM
 Subject: [Origami] On the subject of what constitutes origami
   

But back to my question: Who decided origami couldn't be cut or glued, and 
where, and when? 
Dawn


Hello Dawn, and all:
I think that this is as good a place as any to mention a few things from a 
conversation that I had with Mr. Yoshihide Momotani, back in 1998, in 
Paris--about a dozen or so of us were there to exhibit our origami creations at 
the Carrousel du Louvre. 
Mr. Momotani explained to me that he had been researching the history of paper 
folding as it was employed in the original Kindergarten, prescribed by 
Friedrich Froebel. Mr. Momotani had traveled to Germany to examine original 
documents, materials, and models used in the origami lessons for Kindergarten. 
From his investigations, he postulated two ideas that I found most interesting.
1. The use of the word "Origami" as it pertains to modern paper folding 
activities was the direct result of German texts for Kindergarten paper-folding 
exercise being transliterated into Japanese after Kindergarten was introduced 
in Japan. Froebel simply used the German words "Papier Falter" (paper folding) 
to identify this activity. "Papier Falter" was directly transliterated to 
Origami for use in the Japanese Kindergarten texts. 
Prior to that, many Japnese words were variously used to identify a wide 
variety of paper craft that included folding of some kind. Mr. Momotani also 
explained to me that prior to the influences of Kindergarten, the Japnese word 
"Origami" was more commonly used as a benediction of certification or a 
"diploma". 
2. The modern imperative to use one square, only folding, was also a direct 
influence from Kindergarten. Froebel chose only those models that could be 
foldable from a single uncut square. Back then there were a small number of 
such models and not all were Japanese in origin. The Pajarita and other such 
"Windmill Base" models are representied in his curriculum.
Froebel's reasons for the single square, no cuts, suited the values of his 
learning imperative, that of creative manipulations discoverable within 
constraints. Froebel's origami unit was, I believe, the 18th "Gift". Each Gift 
was a prescribed activity that paired specific materials with creative 
manipulations. There was building with strings, blocks, sticks, slats, peas and 
toothpicks, paper cutting paper weaving... 
As Kindergarten flourished, materials were manufactured and packaged for use in 
the Gift exercises. Among these was the invention of what would become our 
modern pack of assorted solid color origami paper. Froebel's folding paper 
packs were 4-inches square, color on one side only. Why color on one side only? 
Because, like wallpaper and gift wrap, only one side showed when the project 
was complete. Why waste money and time coloring the other side? The unintended 
added advantage to one side being left white was that the front side vs. the 
back side could be easily distinguished during teaching and learning. 
Anyway, I hope that I have represented without error what Mr. Momotani told me 
all those years ago. Based upon his postulations, I am fond of telling people 
that creative "Origami" is not an ancient Japanese art. It is a modern, 
international art form.
All the best,
Michael LaFosse   

Re: [Origami] On the subject of what constitutes origami

[David Mitchell]

Dawn Tucker  wrote:


>My question is this: Who decided (and when) that cutting and gluing keeps a
folded piece from being called origami?

As always it is helpful to look at what David Lister wrote on this subject.
See his article 'To glue or not to glue' in the Lister List ... which is
oddly entitle Glue and Origami in the index.

http://www.britishorigami.info/academic/lister/glue.php

There is also an article in the list on cutting:

http://www.britishorigami.info/academic/lister/cutting.php

I don't always agree with his opinions or conclusions ... but he provides
historical information on which an informed opinion can be founded.

Dave

Re: [Origami] On the subject of what constitutes origami

[Hans Dybkjær]

Den 2. okt. 2017 kl. 19.06 skrev Dawn Tucker via Origami 
:
> 
>  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? 

One thing about origami that makes it so great for design, is that you put up a 
fixed set of rules, and then try to solve your problem within the confines of 
those rules. The rules challenges you to be inventive. How do I get five petals 
from a square with four corners? How do I make a centipede (with hundreds of 
legs) from a square?

Conversely, you challenge the rules. Who says we must use a square? Use a 
pentagon, or five pieces of paper, for the flower with five petals. Instead of 
using thin, thin paper and complicated crease patterns, use a simple fold to 
obtain a pair of legs and then extend the paper to a hundreds of units long 
strip. At the recent BOS convention I exhibited such a millipede, 1150 legs 
from a 25 mm x 1350 cm strip of paper.

John Smith wrote a brief, but profound article many years ago, “Origami 
Profiles”, http://www.britishorigami.info/academic/jonsmif.php exactly on those 
rule sets.

Last Friday during a talk on origami I mentioned the almost anecdotal 
Babylonian papyrus map, folded as you do with maps. Someone in the audience 
asked when folding paper is origami? Yes, linguistically they mean the same.  
No, intuitively folded paper is not necessarily paperfolding. 

After weaving around with maps and NASA and origami, I came up with that for 
folding paper to be origami, it needs to end up being a model in its own right, 
such a plate, a box, an elephant, a piece of abstract art, etc. Maps and NASA 
do not meet this criterium. However, the DO use origami *techniques*.

Best regards
 Hans

PS: Yes, Golden Venture Origami (or the horrible term, 3D-origami) is origami. 
There is really not any principled distinction between that and other LEGO like 
modulars like the many Sonobe modulars, or the great animals by Max Hulme (also 
on exhibition at the BOS exhibition). 
And no, you don’t need to love folding a particular genre of something for it 
to be origami.

Conversely

Hans Dybkjær
Site: papirfoldning.dk
Society: foldning.dk

Re: [Origami] On the subject of what constitutes origami

[Diana Lee via Origami]

>>But back to my question: Who decided origami couldn't be cut or glued, and 
>>where, and when? 


Old tyme-y origami had cuts in it so I wouldn't say that original origami 
didn't allow cuts.  
I don't know who or when the idea of no cuts, no glue, no tools came to be (see 
Pure Origami page below).Back in the 1970's, John Smith developed Pureland 
Origami which is even more restrictive than Pure Origami.  Read more:
http://www.origami-resource-center.com/pure-pureland.html

I don't mind when people have opinions but as Robert Lang says, those are just 
opinions.  There was a time when I ONLY folded modular origami and I can say 
with definition that there are MANY beautiful origami models that are made with 
assembled units. In fact, the more simple the unit, the more amazing the feat.  
Like programming with zeros and ones. omg.
Diana