If There are Cuts, it's not origami, is it?

General discussion about Origami, Papers, Diagramming, ...
User avatar
dinogami
Super Member
Posts: 241
Joined: March 17th, 2007, 2:32 am
Location: St. George, UT
Contact:

Re: If There are Cuts, it's not origami, is it?

Post by dinogami »

Why not also:

kiriorigami: models that are primarily folded but with a few cuts

orikirigami: models that are primarily cut but with a few folds

Of course, if we want to get into that level of detail, then there's also the argument to be made that wet-folding, using methyl cellulose, and the like violate the "no glue" rule because they basically take advantage of the sizing in the paper as a means of preventing the model from springing apart... :wink:
User avatar
966623
Newbie
Posts: 11
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:02 pm

Re: If There are Cuts, it's not origami, is it?

Post by 966623 »

What really annoys me is when people call paper-crafts origami. Papercrafts are very different from origami.
-
But yeah, sometimes, a model with a few cuts will look better than an attempt to make the same thing without cuts. We do things without cuts just because we can.
User avatar
Jonnycakes
Buddha
Posts: 1414
Joined: June 14th, 2007, 8:25 pm
Location: Ohio, USA
Contact:

Re: If There are Cuts, it's not origami, is it?

Post by Jonnycakes »

Joe the white wrote: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.
Why is priority given to cutting over folding? If one cut would turn an origami piece into kirigami, why shouldn't one fold then cause a kirigami piece to be classified as origami? I don't think a single small cut or fold should change the classification of the piece. After all, the entire goal of classifying artwork into categories is so that the observer can get a general idea of what process or materials were used to create it. Calling a complex origami piece with just a single small cut kirigami is like calling a marble sculpture which has had a tiny portion of it painted a painting. It isn't reflective of the actual process used. If folds are primarily used, it should be origami, and likewise for cuts. There is, of course, a gray area, so it is probably useful in these cases to call it a mix of origami and kirigami techniques. In the case of origami, it is probably also worthwhile to note if there is even a small amount of cutting involved for the sake of purists, particularly if there are diagrams.
User avatar
Joe the white
Senior Member
Posts: 456
Joined: May 17th, 2003, 2:51 pm

Re: If There are Cuts, it's not origami, is it?

Post by Joe the white »

Priority is given to cutting over folding, because that is what Kirigami is (by generally accepted defininition, as well as literal translation). If you were to say, fold one of Erik Demaine's One Cut theorem creations ( http://erikdemaine.org/foldcut/ ) for a skyline of new york city that totals 1,000 folds and a single small cut, would you consider that origami? If I folded a Cuttlefish from a modified frog base and made a single small cut that yielded all of the appendages,would that be kirigami? What exactly do you consider it to be?

Another important part of art in its classifications, is the nature of the medium and adding/subtracting from the medium. In marble or stone sculpture particularly, its a subtractive process, where as clay sculpture could be additive, neutral, or subtractive. If you were to add paint to marble in particular (a horrible thought, like coloring Origamido paper with crayola markers and adding googly eyes), it'd still be classified as sculpture, though probably not marble sculpture, in the same way origami would be consider papercraft if you painted it (there is also the issue of 2-d art vs 3-d art between painting and sculpture). Origami and Purist Origami are neither additive or subtractive, which is fairly unique among art forms, vs kirigami which is more often than not subtractive.

Scientifically one could argue that painting is both additive and subtractive because the liquids in paint will evaporate causing them to dry, or that purist origami is additive and subtractive because creases cause a loss of paper fiber, and oils on your hands are applied to the paper. Science doesn't exactly apply though, with the nature of artistic classification.
User avatar
Jonnycakes
Buddha
Posts: 1414
Joined: June 14th, 2007, 8:25 pm
Location: Ohio, USA
Contact:

Re: If There are Cuts, it's not origami, is it?

Post by Jonnycakes »

EDIT: I thought I'd add this in first, since I realize I didn't fully answer your first statement. You say to give priority to cutting because that is the definition of kirigami-the art of cutting paper. Origami is the art of folding paper, so you could use the same logic to give priority to folds-thus a huge chunk of kirigami would then be classified as origami.

No science needed. The distinction I aimed to make is the degree that cuts factor into the final piece. If, as in your case of Demaine's one cut models, the cut forms the entirety of the intended final form, that would certainly classify as kirigami. In fact, kirigami often involves folding, cutting, and then unfolding, so this falls squarely in that realm. But if you make a tiny cut for ears on an origami horse, for example, it is absurd to call it kirigami, as origami techniques were used for a VAST majority of the piece (and contribute to a vast majority of the piece's finished form as well). One cut can be very involved or miniscule and hardly noticeable. My idea of what makes something ori or kiri-gami is not whether it contains cuts/folds and not the number of cuts/folds, but how important the cuts/folds were to the finished artwork and the artistic process.

Also, it is commonly accepted that the ancient Greeks painted marble sculptures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_sculpture). On a side note, I wouldn't consider origami any less origami if it were painted (in the same way that I don't consider Greek marble statues any less of sculptures). The painting doesn't really change the technique used to create the form. Many origamists paint the paper before or after folding. You can consider this preparing the paper if done beforehand, but if done afterward, does it really affect the process? Tiny technicalities such as this shouldn't change the broad classification of an artwork.
User avatar
Joe the white
Senior Member
Posts: 456
Joined: May 17th, 2003, 2:51 pm

Re: If There are Cuts, it's not origami, is it?

Post by Joe the white »

Kirigami is rarely performed without any folding. To make traditional kirigami like spider webs, hearts, snowflakes, etc. it requires folding in addition to cuts. Thats why I make that distinction, that kirigami almost always involves folds of some sort, but origami is just folding (in that way, you could sort of consider origami as a subset of kirigami the same way purist origami is a subset of origami).

I don't think its absurd at all to call cut ears on an otherwise origami horse as kirigami. The cut is the distinction there. A model of a horse doesn't necessitate ears, unless its a defining part of the finished model's appearance as determined by the artist, in that case kirigami would be the defining term since you had to reach that by performing a cut. It'd be the same if you made a cut in the beginning so you could form 10 flaps instead of 5, or if you made a cut on an insect to push some hidden flaps out to form antennae. You couldn't achieve your finished model (your vision) without the cut, so the cut is a defining aspect.

The ancient Greeks may have painted the marble, which doesn't change it from being a sculpture, but its not "marble" sculpture as generally accepted in modern terms. Painting a sculpture is usually due to artistic taste to enhance the sculpture, or to cover up a poor material (or both). Marble is considered among the best in carving materials, especially for its natural color qualities. The painting isn't necessary unless its due to artistic vision, which makes it sculpture, and not "marble" sculpture. Painted marble is really no different from painted soapstone (aside from scientific qualities like how porous the material is or to what detail the sculpture is carved), stone sculpture is stone sculpture at that point. For example, why paint gold vs another more easily obtainable substance, unless its for artistic vision?

The painting of origami is to bring attention to that portion (portions) of the model. Its not necessary (meaning outside of folding) besides in artistic vision. Even using the underside of a model for "color changes" is relatively new concept. It really depends on how far you want to define the work. If you ink the paper on one side, or back coat the paper first, or if you coat on a third layer to a specific portion of the model, etc. What if you fold a piece of metal, or dough, or fabric? At that point does it cease to be origami and just become folding if you drop the paper medium? The whole point of classifications are not to lock you into your medium or make it feel more valued/devalued vs other forms (that'd be personal opinion), but to best express what the art is (in a scholarly application, to look up specific types of art and see how it was performed). In this case between origami and kirigami which both contain folds, cutting would be the greatest difference between the two. In the case of Natural Marble Sculpture and Painted Marble Sculpture, the greatest difference is the paint.
User avatar
malachi
Senior Member
Posts: 354
Joined: December 18th, 2004, 9:19 pm
Location: Tennessee
Contact:

Re: If There are Cuts, it's not origami, is it?

Post by malachi »

I do think it is absurd to classify something as kirigami when it would be otherwise considered origami except for one or two small cuts used to create minor details.

I could argue that it is possible to create any kirigami model without folding, just by cutting. Granted, that is not the typical practice, but it is possible.

However, the real reason I am bothering to post tonight is that one could easily argue that cutting the paper to shape/size for origami is, in fact, a required cutting operation in order to form the final origami model. Very little, if any, paper is created in the proper size and shape, it is all cut by someone. So, by extension of the idea that even one cut makes something kirigami and not origami, I would argue that all "origami" is, in fact, kirigami.
User avatar
origamiguy
Super Member
Posts: 144
Joined: March 23rd, 2006, 8:13 pm
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
Contact:

Re: If There are Cuts, it's not origami, is it?

Post by origamiguy »

Robert Lang had an interesting take on cutting the paper into a square to start. See his Lion here - http://www.flickr.com/photos/bkwebb/2271852606/

"When all is said and done, there's nothing new underneath the Sun."
Here Come The Mummies
Cheers,
Brian K. Webb
http://www.eorigamipublishing.com
User avatar
Joe the white
Senior Member
Posts: 456
Joined: May 17th, 2003, 2:51 pm

Re: If There are Cuts, it's not origami, is it?

Post by Joe the white »

As I discussed earlier, it could be an understandable and viable classification to call all origami as kirigami. The classifications could branch off depending on the rules applied. For example, it could work like this:

Paper Craft:
-Manipulation of paper to create art
|
V
?
|
V
Kirigami:
-Cutting and Folding of Paper
|
V
Origami:
-Folding of Paper
|
V
Purist Origami:
-Folding of Square Paper
|
V
Purist Pureland Origami:
-Folding of Square Paper using only Mountain and Valley Folds

Then again, you could call cutting the sheet to size as preparation of materials and not intended to be the actual art (tangently similar to the argument in the lawsuit concerning crease patterns), otherwise the growing of the plant,cutting of the plant, breaking down, bleaching, and beating of the fibers, etc. would also be counted among the techniques used to produce the art (like counting the production of the canvas as the production of a painting).

You could also try to classify cut models by the types of cuts used, such as if they create negative space (such as a duck in the center of the sheet), if they're a line, or if they're on the inside of the model or the outer edge. It'd be difficult without a standard method to identify the dragonfly from Kan no Mado/Kyaragusa (also in Secrets of Origami by Robert Harbin).

For all logical intents and purposes, trying to make the classification overly simplified or overly complex just makes it harder for people to find what they are looking for (such as searching DeviantArt for origami in their papercraft section). Thats why its generally accepted that a cut = kirigami, not that kirigami and origami are the same thing, nor that a specific ratio of 1 cuts vs 10 folds or more makes it origami vs kirigami.
User avatar
Jonnycakes
Buddha
Posts: 1414
Joined: June 14th, 2007, 8:25 pm
Location: Ohio, USA
Contact:

Re: If There are Cuts, it's not origami, is it?

Post by Jonnycakes »

Joe the white wrote:Thats why I make that distinction, that kirigami almost always involves folds of some sort, but origami is just folding (in that way, you could sort of consider origami as a subset of kirigami the same way purist origami is a subset of origami).
Not really, because kirigami by definition involves cutting. Standard origami techniques also differ greatly from standard kirigami techniques.
Joe the white wrote:A model of a horse doesn't necessitate ears, unless its a defining part of the finished model's appearance as determined by the artist...
Hold on, there-an artist always has a decision about ears-having them prominently featured, not having them at all, or anywhere in-between. This does bring up a good point, though-the ears on a horse are decidedly not (typically) a defining aspect of the horse.
Joe the white wrote:...in that case kirigami would be the defining term since you had to reach that by performing a cut. It'd be the same if you made a cut in the beginning so you could form 10 flaps instead of 5, or if you made a cut on an insect to push some hidden flaps out to form antennae. You couldn't achieve your finished model (your vision) without the cut, so the cut is a defining aspect.
No. Typical horse ears do not define a horse. You could easily fold a horse without ears and have it fairly easily recognized. Just as the antennae on an insect do not define it (there are tons of antenna-less origami bugs). In fact, you can get rid of a lot of a subject's more detailed features and still capture its essence. The traditional octopus with cut legs, for instance, could be as easily recognized as an octopus with its original uncut four legs. The cuts don't define the model, the folding does. This is why it is origami, not kirigami-it employs origami techniques, not kirigami techniques. A single, simple, straight cut does not completely redefine an artwork (with few exceptions, such as Demaine's one-cut pieces).
Joe the white wrote:Painted marble is really no different from painted soapstone (aside from scientific qualities like how porous the material is or to what detail the sculpture is carved), stone sculpture is stone sculpture at that point. For example, why paint gold vs another more easily obtainable substance, unless its for artistic vision?
I mostly agree with you here. Sculpture is sculpture, stone sculpture is stone sculpture, and painted marble is no different than painted soapstone except that it is marble instead of soapstone. If an artist wants to use marble, that is his choice and there is probably a reason for that. Painting it is painting it, and it doesn't necessarily detract from the sculptural aspect of the artwork.
Joe the white wrote:The painting of origami is to bring attention to that portion (portions) of the model. Its not necessary (meaning outside of folding) besides in artistic vision.
I entirely agree. You don't have to do it if you don't want to, which makes it rather superfluous to how the artwork should be defined.
Joe the white wrote:What if you fold a piece of metal, or dough, or fabric? At that point does it cease to be origami and just become folding if you drop the paper medium?
No, and this is what I'm trying to say. Making a tiny change in the process of folding does not change the basic technique used for a vast majority of the artwork-origami. An example could be folding from metal or fabric, painting the piece, or introducing a small and largely insignificant cut.
Joe the white wrote:In this case between origami and kirigami which both contain folds, cutting would be the greatest difference between the two. In the case of Natural Marble Sculpture and Painted Marble Sculpture, the greatest difference is the paint.
In the difference of natural marble sculpture and painted marble sculpture, in fact the only difference is paint (in process, that is). That doesn't make the painted statue a painting, though. The largest retained aspect between the two is that...let's see...the are SCULPTURES. In the case between origami and kirigami, there are much greater differences. Origami involves predominantly folding and uses very different techniques than kirigami. Kirigami, contrastingly, primarily uses cuts to suggest form. Origami primarily uses folds, but introducing a tiny cut for ears doesn't redefine how the the rest of the figure was realized.
Joe the white wrote:The whole point of classifications are not to lock you into your medium or make it feel more valued/devalued vs other forms (that'd be personal opinion), but to best express what the art is (in a scholarly application, to look up specific types of art and see how it was performed).
I agree 100%. Origami purists erroneously use classification as papercraft or kirigami in an attempt to discredit "impure" origami that uses cuts, glue/MC, foil paper, wet-folding, the ridiculous list goes on. They often argue that a tiny drop of glue/MC/water/paint or a tiny cut disqualifies an artwork as origami, even when it does not change the fact that the work was created primarily using origami techniques. I do not believe you fall into this camp, but the same argument can be used against your stance.

EDIT: You beat me :P
Joe the white wrote:For all logical intents and purposes, trying to make the classification overly simplified or overly complex just makes it harder for people to find what they are looking for.... Thats why its generally accepted that a cut = kirigami, not that kirigami and origami are the same thing, nor that a specific ratio of 1 cuts vs 10 folds or more makes it origami vs kirigami.
Firstly, that is not commonly accepted. For example, the traditional origami goldfish (involving a cut for the tail) is unanimously accepted as origami. In fact, many traditional origami models use cuts. You denounce overly simplifying classification, yet you do just that in suggesting the classification that kirigami is any cut paper. It isn't a question of how many cuts there are, it is a question of what techniques were used primarily.
User avatar
Joe the white
Senior Member
Posts: 456
Joined: May 17th, 2003, 2:51 pm

Re: If There are Cuts, it's not origami, is it?

Post by Joe the white »

Jonnycakes wrote:No. Typical horse ears do not define a horse. You could easily fold a horse without ears and have it fairly easily recognized. Just as the antennae on an insect do not define it (there are tons of antenna-less origami bugs). In fact, you can get rid of a lot of a subject's more detailed features and still capture its essence. The traditional octopus with cut legs, for instance, could be as easily recognized as an octopus with its original uncut four legs. The cuts don't define the model, the folding does. This is why it is origami, not kirigami-it employs origami techniques, not kirigami techniques. A single, simple, straight cut does not completely redefine an artwork (with few exceptions, such as Demaine's one-cut pieces).

I would have to argue on that point. The ears of a horse are very important details that are often overlooked. Artists tend to focus on the horse's beauty in running/trotting motion, but to the horse's actual emotions the ears are very important (having horses myself). The same goes for antennae on insects, or the eight legs of an octopus. It may not define the subject to you or you may be able to recognize it without those additions, but for those artists, it was a defining enough aspect that they chose to cut instead of fold, which changed the essence of the art.
Jonnycakes wrote:Firstly, that is not commonly accepted. For example, the traditional origami goldfish (involving a cut for the tail) is unanimously accepted as origami. In fact, many traditional origami models use cuts. You denounce overly simplifying classification, yet you do just that in suggesting the classification that kirigami is any cut paper. It isn't a question of how many cuts there are, it is a question of what techniques were used primarily.
I see it as commonly accepted, but I could be wrong. In traditional models there were only a handful of models to survive till modern day (and even then, they may have belonged to only a few specific creators), but since then origami (and kirigami) has improved and branched out so much so, that not classifying it differently creates and an enormous amount of works to sift through. If kirigami isn't a suitable word, what is?

I mean, if I want to see/fold an origami horse (beating the origami horse to death here =p) that is specifically from a square with no cuts and healthy amount of detail, I'd be looking for a purist design of complex difficulty. However, among the results I might also find a modular horse made from sonobe modules, or a tesselation of horses, or a kirigami horse, or a simple horse that requires only 3 folds, etc. If everyone specifically labled their models as "origami horse", without any distinction to what they are or in the way they're formed, it'd take a long time to find what I'm looking for or give up in the process.

I'm a librarian, so I feel classifications are very important because I see issues with it on a daily basis, having something in a too generalized area, or not in a broad enough area make it hard to locate. For instance, if someone asked me for a book on trains and I searched "trains", I'd find less books than searching "locomotives" because the books were not classified properly (technically they should be under both terms), so I might have to just send them to the transportation section of the technology area and let them go through what is on the shelf (add to that improper shelving of books and it can become a mess).
User avatar
Jonnycakes
Buddha
Posts: 1414
Joined: June 14th, 2007, 8:25 pm
Location: Ohio, USA
Contact:

Re: If There are Cuts, it's not origami, is it?

Post by Jonnycakes »

Joe the white wrote:Artists tend to focus on the horse's beauty in running/trotting motion, but to the horse's actual emotions the ears are very important.... The same goes for antennae on insects, or the eight legs of an octopus....but for those artists, it was a defining enough aspect that they chose to cut instead of fold, which changed the essence of the art.
I agree that the ears on a horse are important-admittedly my argument is not strong on this point-but take Lafosse's mantis. It has no antennae yet loses nothing in capturing the essence of the subject. But even so, it doesn't even matter what parts of the subject are cut and what aren't or whether or not they are the "essence" of the subject. What matters is the primary technique used, which is origami/folding in the cases discussed. If you make one insignificant cut, it doesn't magically transform or alter the rest of the process, and it doesn't magically cause the artwork to be formed primarily by cutting, so why should it reclassify the artwork in a manner that implies that it was formed primarily by cutting? What about Kamiya's Ryuzin? If you cut one extra claw on each leg, would that classify the entire thing as kirigami? It shouldn't "change the essence of the art" unless you refuse to accept anything but purist origami (perhaps as a moral stance?).
Joe the white wrote:If kirigami isn't a suitable word, what is?
Origami with minimal cutting. Or just origami if you aren't nitpicking. This is what I have been saying all along. Or in the case where the cutting is roughly equal with the folding, a mix of origami and kirigami techniques.
Joe the white wrote:If everyone specifically labled their models as "origami horse", without any distinction to what they are or in the way they're formed, it'd take a long time to find what I'm looking for or give up in the process.
People generally label origami models as modulars or tessellations if applicable. Labeling a model as simple or complex is less common, but it still happens all the time. I conceded the inadequacy of my essence/horse ears argument, so to be fair I must point out that searching for a complex, purist origami horse is incredibly easy. I assume by kirigami in this case you mean a horse with a simple cut for ears, as is relevant to the discussion, but I challenge you to distinguish one such horse from purist origami horses without looking at diagrams for them. If such a horse was classified as kirigami, someone looking for a kirigami horse may be sorely disappointed to find an origami horse with one tiny cut as the last step. Also, why in the world would someone specifically look for such a horse? In this case, the cuts play a minimal role, so it is really a question of how much of a purist you are. If you are okay with the small cut, you will also be okay with a purely folded horse. That is, unless you are looking for a kirigami horse. Note the tremendous difference between the two searches-does this not serve as evidence that your view of kirigami is not the commonly accepted view? An observer viewing an apparently origami horse would be confused or misled if it were labeled as kirigami just because of some cut ears. It would be a bad classification, since it would hamper someone finding what they are looking for. A better classification would simply be origami with cuts vs. origami without cuts. Kirigami implies something very different.
Post Reply