The Origami Forum

It seems to me that a book shouldn't be marketed as an "origami" book if all or most of the models require cuts... I've noticed that most of the Duy Nguyen books I've seen are mostly filled with diagrams that require cuts. Which is fine, but isn't that really kirigami?

On the origami mailing list there is a discussion about digital books and the use of pirated books and their use/misuse/evaluation/etc. It's this kind of experience that makes me only want to buy books that I can preview in a significant way, which most of the time means a pirated version.

it depends. one has to realize that the "one square, no cuts rule" is very young compared to the actual tradition of origami (as in, ~ 10-20 years, but you have to remember that origami has been around for several hundred years). there are many artists out there who routinely violate the one square rule, like leo lai, joseph wu, and dao cuong quyet for amazing aesthetic results. yoshizawa himself was to have said, for instance, that the horse and its rider are two separate things, and wondered why creators should try to make them out of one thing.

there's going to be some arbitrariness to it, but a fair way to look at it is origami is mostly folds, and kirigami is mostly cuts.

so show me the origami rule book where it is written...
as long as there's no official rule book you can do whatever you want. how about a single cut and 300 steps of folding? Is that origami?
origami means folding paper and as long as the main process is folding, its of course origami, even if you cut the paper.

I would also point out that most authors (according to Nick Robinson) don't get to choose the title of their origami books.
"World's Best Origami" and "The Complete Book of Origami" could be considered much less accurate titles. But then, the idea is to sell books. Titles like these appeal to a much wider audience.

In fact, a perfect example would be the fact that I received Duy Nguyen's "Mythical Creature Origami" set for Christmas from my mother.

Personally, when I think of kirigami, I think of folding, cutting and then unfolding. And as mentioned, in kirigami, the shapes/patterns are derived more from cutting than from folding. With origami, the converse is true.
And as Nick Robinson also says, cutting can achieve things much more elegantly than pure folding. For example, Duy Nguyen's "hydra" model has 6 heads, starting from a regular bird base. The body is from a separate square, too.
While the entire model can be, and probably has been, made with a single, uncut square, the size of the final would be much smaller compared to the original square, would involve more, possibly complicated, steps, and become quite thick in places.

Cuts can make things much simpler.

Of course, it would be nice if there was a small note on the back of origami books, giving details of whether models involve cuts, or multiple sheets, etc.

There is a model that I like a lot, it comes from a 2 x 1 rectangle and it includes 2 cuts for the ears. It is Adolfo Cerceda's Moor on Horseback. It is origami (and of the best kind) to me.

fncll wrote:It seems to me that a book shouldn't be marketed as an "origami" book if all or most of the models require cuts... I've noticed that most of the Duy Nguyen books I've seen are mostly filled with diagrams that require cuts. Which is fine, but isn't that really kirigami?

On the origami mailing list there is a discussion about digital books and the use of pirated books and their use/misuse/evaluation/etc. It's this kind of experience that makes me only want to buy books that I can preview in a significant way, which most of the time means a pirated version.

It s a personal decision. Do you want to cut or don't you? If you are entering contests or submitting to club books, then their respective rules have to apply. Outside of that, do what you like.

Let me say, though, that using this argument to rationalize piracy is dubious. One could argue that "fair use" includes previewing materials to decide on a purchase. One would have to go to court, and would probably lose against the publishing house lawyers, to try to claim that right. This forum would be an excellent place to ask if a book contains material that you don't want to try because of cuts or odd shapes, and you wouldn't be abusing the author's copyright to ask. The origami database is another place to try - that's my usual stop to preview a book before buying it.

if a model has cuts i will always refuse to fold it. it seems like cheating because it is entirely possible to do the same thing with only folding.

orislater wrote:if a model has cuts i will always refuse to fold it. it seems like cheating because it is entirely possible to do the same thing with only folding.

...unless you're folding a cut.

cjbnc wrote: Let me say, though, that using this argument to rationalize piracy is dubious. One could argue that "fair use" includes previewing materials to decide on a purchase. One would have to go to court, and would probably lose against the publishing house lawyers, to try to claim that right. This forum would be an excellent place to ask if a book contains material that you don't want to try because of cuts or odd shapes, and you wouldn't be abusing the author's copyright to ask. The origami database is another place to try - that's my usual stop to preview a book before buying it.

Well, that's a different thing altogether. I'm not necessarily convinced that there IS piracy if a digital copy isn't actually used or kept beyond being used to evaluate whether to purchase a book or not. Just as I don't think it's piracy if I browse through a copy at the bookstore and choose not to buy it.

But I was really just interested in whether origami with cuts was more common than I took it to be, since I had read, mostly, that origami was "one sheet of paper, no cuts, no clue." I know that in _Traditional Origami_ (incidentally, one of many books I bought only because I saw it in a pirated form first), Maekawa writes something to the effect that origami must include some cutting or else we'd have to work on an infinitely sized sheet of paper.

So, for me and for now, I'm sticking with models that are a single sheet of paper, regardless of starting shape, and no cuts or glue. I don't have any problem with people doing otherwise, I just wish the book would clearly note that the models involve cutting, particularly when almost all of them do! Maybe it should just be noted that it's not "traditional origami" or something.

I'm not foaming at the mouth about this issue or anything, though. I'm a newbie and I thought it was curious...

Checking in the oldest origami books it's very easy to find models that require little cuts, mostly to obtain ears or horns or to double legs, and/or are made from two sheets of paper, this is true even for the great Masters like Yoshizawa, you may find one of his kabuto that needs two "L" shaped cuts, or several of his animals made with two sheets or that come from not-squared paper.
The rule "one square, no cuts, no glue" is relatively new, origami cuts are surely admitted in "classic-original-historical", in my opinion even in our days a little cut to keep the model as simple as possible may be acceptable.

I dont think anyone has mentioned this, so I will: Many of the first origami models had cuts involved...it's a matter of opinion and taste...but I will say that those Dan Nguyen books are just...not as fun...

Well, if you're looking for a book to see if it has cuts, irregular shaped paper, or other things, Gilad's Origami Page is a really great place for checking for that, since he does a LOT of origami book reviews (and reviews most of the popular ones). It's a place I always look (and buy off of) whenever I want a certain book, or if I'm looking for a specific model.
Homepage
http://www.giladorigami.com/index.html
Book Reviews
http://www.giladorigami.com/Books_default.html
Personally though, I think it's a manner of preference, and convenience. For example, most origami places don't stock hexagons, equilateral triangles, or other particular shapes to fold from, meaning I have to cut a square or rectangle to that shape, which could take up more time than just buying a big pack of squares from a store. This is why I usually go with the no cuts, no glue, one square rule, but I will sometimes make ones from rectangles (like dollar bill origami-but you don't really cut or glue those :).

This argument will achieve nothing, as the actual meaning of origami, or what exactly origami is, is not a black and white subject, so the question itself was redundant in the first place, defining this as a black and white subject. It still is fun debating your view of what origami is, but does this achieve anything? In my view on this subject, to say that origami is not origami when it has had cuts used in the process of folding is depending on a model by model basis, and cannot necessarily be decided on a generalised basis, though origami without cuts provides more of a challenge, and is therefore, more fun.

orislater wrote:if a model has cuts i will always refuse to fold it. it seems like cheating because it is entirely possible to do the same thing with only folding.

It is also entirely possible to live without electricity, but why bicycle 50 miles when you could drive? It is certainly possible to do anything without cuts, but a lot of things are a lot easier, or even feasible, with them.

To my understanding, these are the generally accepted classifications:

Kirigami: A model that involes cutting. By definition, it means "to cut paper" vs origami which means "to fold paper". Instead or arbitrarily assigning it under one or the other based on how many cuts/folds it has, if it has a single cut vs 300 folds, I think it'd still be classified as kirigami for simplicity's sake.

Origami: To fold a model from a sheet of paper. The size/shape or number of pieces doesn't matter as long as its just folding. Adding googly eyes, etc. and non-paperbinding glues are generally frowned upon, and might be more considered as papercraft than just origami.

Purist Origami: To fold a model from a single square sheet of paper. Paperbinding glues are still somewhat controversial (methylcellulose, etc.), but generally accepted by many popular artists for showpieces.

Those are classifications, which are guidelines for deciding what is defined as what. Defining kirigami as origami is like calling a petunia a rose. The petunia is still a petunia, but they're both plants in the end.