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
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.