Glue, Wetfolding, Tissue Foil and Purism

[Morgan]

I think the question of purity lies solely in each individual project. a "pure" kawasaki rose "IS" made from a square. however, you can make a pentagon rose also...and the "pure" form of this is made from a pentagon.. and my toughts on glue and stuff are that glueing is not the creating, but more of the presentation of the artwork. a picasso is still a picasso even if it has been encased inside a glass viewing box thing, or something. and also on the painting note....a painting is still a a painting no matter what medium it is. however a "watercolor" painting must always be done with watercolors. if it is not, then it is another type of painting. ALSO if a painting is done with watercolor and another type of "paint" it is then called mixed media, or you can call it watercolor, or you can call it whatever you want, but just so long as someone else knows what you used. so origami...is that a medium or is it the general broad scope of an art? i think origami is more of a verb, like to paint...to origami...to ori fold kami paper fold paper....not ori-square-ami. and i think the proper technical name for the product is a "sculpture"
maybe? who knows

[Marx]

That arrangement of words you just created made no sense whatsoever. Would you clarify in English?

[Daydreamer]

Actually his posts make more sense to me than your own loooong essays. And what you are doing is actually exactly what Wolf meant when talking about the teenage crowds... you are trying to convince everybody of your idea of what Origami is and condemning everything else as being not Origami.

[thedeadsmellbad]

Marx, please don't be discouraged, I thought you stated your opinions well.
Morgan I like your analogy of a general title for painting with more specifics invoked by methods used.

[Marx]

Oh no, I'm not discouraged, only invogorated. I understand what you're saying when you say the teenage crowd feels the need to condemn other foldings as not origami.
It's ridiculous to claim that because a folder is a teen, their opinions on purism are not as valid. Maturity is something you acquire, I agree with that. But I do not agree that there is an age that you can do this. Yea, I write a lot, but does that make my points any less?
I know it might be annoying to have someone new, writing a lot and stating their beliefs on purism when they may not know the ropes, but I'm going to state what I think, and telling my I don't make sense or that all teens are arrogant does nothing.

EDIT: And I wasn't referring to what Morgan said. I posted this referrng to caysao1. That might have come off poorly. I'm sorry for that , Morgan. I like to comparison between origami and painting, yet I stand by myself that glue used to create the model and to hold the model together isn't necessarily pure. If you're applying it for STRENGTH of the model itself, to help iut stand against time, that's one thing. If you're combatting the disability of the folds themselves, that's another.

[malachi]

I first need to apoligize. I want you to know that I wasn't attempting to attack you, and it looks like it came off that way.

That's a problem, then, because you are basically attacking my beliefs. Unit origami is one of my preferred modes.

I follow the origami reference to just paper folding. But if we consider this to be true, then every unintentional fold in a piece of paper is a work or origami.

This is a debate that some parts of the art world have already been through, in particular modern art. I would argue that any folded paper could be considered a work of origami.

Truly, the word origami does not incdicate anything about the ability to use glue or cuts, which doesn't necessarily prohibit the use, but it does not permit the use. I can tell you that when the word was created, I doubt that there were very effiecient cutting or gluing methods, so there would be no possibility of knowing about it. They didn't have glue or scissors, so how would they have knwon to indicate not to use it? It's like making a car and saying in the manual "Don't use rougel gas" in it. We don't even know what rougel gas is. But maybe it's part of the future? My point is is that there would be no way for them to indicate the rules or purism if all the possible deviations from that standard cannot be known.

Here is where I'm going to get a little pedantic. While glue may be a more complex issue in this regard, cutting is not. Humans have had cutting tools for a very, very long time. In fact, if it were not for the existence of effective cutting tools, how would the first origami artists have managed to start with a square in the first place?

I think you could even argue the opposite of your point, that origami should expand to include new developments and technologies. For example, we fold with some papers that is radically different from the first origami models ever made, but I don't see you rushing to exclude models made with modern papers from "pure" origami.

I agree that they may not have had scissors, but there are other ways to cut paper, including knives which have been around quite a while. Also, tearing could have been, and I would guess was, used to create a "cutting" effect for some models.

The basic point I am arguing is that the meaning of origami should be as inclusive as reasonably possible. Narrowing the scope for "purity" does not provide enough benifit, in my opinion, to warrant the restrictions.

Yes, I dismiss an entire branch because it is truly not origami, and this is my own opinion. I do not agree that modulars are origami. I believe they take skill and craft, but they are not origami. Let me elaborate on this. There is a reason for my creation of values and purist standard. It is because there has to be a line drawn at some point that says "This is not origami." If we allow modulars and gluing to be considered origami, then can not a folder just glue five papers together and call it a star? Remove glue, then, you might say. Then can't that same person vaguely dog-ear a set of pages and call it book? Without some standard, there is no way to truly keep all of these idiotic pretences from making a publisher cry. ANd if we are to further elaborate on the modulars concept, at what point will we say that the modular is no longer just four or five sheets aligned in a pattern? This means we must set a standard for intricacy. And when we set a standard for intricacy, does this not confer some sort of judging to go on? And if this judging occurs, then how will we keep all models on the same table, if we are to allow cutting? Remove cutting. We now have an honest and accurate standard to hold models to. It is extreme to completely dismiss models due to their presence of cut and glue, but it is also ridiculous to accept them when they harbor the possibilities of permutations and unfair advantages in the craft. gluing to keep folds together is not bad. Gluing to join sheets? That's unfair. Cutting for a detail? That's questionable. Cutting to gain an entire limb? That's unfair. Using multiple modules of the same device to tesselate? That's odd. Using multiple modules and calling it paper folding? That's wrong.

Wow, that's nice straw man. I don't agree with all of your assertions. I'm not sure I agree with any of them.

Also, I don't understand what you mean about unfairness. The idea of fairness might matter if this were some sort of contest, but it is not. If it were, I could understand the need to have rules in place to restrict the entries, even if I might not agree with a specific implementation, but we're talking about the wide world of possibilites, so I don't see how fairness enters into it.

[Marx]

Unit origami is one of my preferred modes.

I follow the origami reference to just paper folding. But if we consider this to be true, then every unintentional fold in a piece of paper is a work or origami.

This is a debate that some parts of the art world have already been through, in particular modern art. I would argue that any folded paper could be considered a work of origami.

Here is where I'm going to get a little pedantic. While glue may be a more complex issue in this regard, cutting is not. Humans have had cutting tools for a very, very long time. In fact, if it were not for the existence of effective cutting tools, how would the first origami artists have managed to start with a square in the first place?

The basic point I am arguing is that the meaning of origami should be as inclusive as reasonably possible. Narrowing the scope for "purity" does not provide enough benifit, in my opinion, to warrant the restrictions.


Wow, that's nice straw man. I don't agree with all of your assertions. I'm not sure I agree with any of them.

Also, I don't understand what you mean about unfairness. The idea of fairness might matter if this were some sort of contest, but it is not. If it were, I could understand the need to have rules in place to restrict the entries, even if I might not agree with a specific implementation, but we're talking about the wide world of possibilites, so I don't see how fairness enters into it.

For one, I don't understand why everyone is getting so worked up. I don't personally like some forms of origami and don't consider them PURE. You're not going to change my opinions, and yet we all continue to challenge them? As for the fairness argument, that is what I am talking about. If we are to organize models and compare them to each other, shouldn't we have a standard for them to adhere to? This is the entire basis of all of my opinions. When you're tooling around with paper and creating your own models and sculptures, I don't care what you do, because I don't think anyone here hasn't folded a modular piece. I don't think anyone here makes their own model and then says "Is this origami pure or not?"

I do have to give you a lot of credit for the cutting tools, though. I never though about it from that perspective.

[malachi]

As for the fairness argument, that is what I am talking about. If we are to organize models and compare them to each other, shouldn't we have a standard for them to adhere to? This is the entire basis of all of my opinions.

I'm still not getting it. I don't see how this is a contest or need to compare models, so how can it be unfair?

The ultimate question is one of personal preference about a given model which only has to do with "purity" if you personally decide to value it.

There are contexts in which I would argue that a cut or glued model is superior to a "pure" model, from my perspective. For example, when teaching children origami, it may be easier to get them interested if they can fold a more realistic looking simple model that requires a few cuts to add details rather than a more abstract simple model that is "pure". In that context, the ease of use and the model's appearance are more important to me than some arbitrary rules.

This issue only really bugs me when people start boxing the meaning of origami. It's one thing to prefer folding "pure" models, but it really gets on my nerves when you say that something isn't origami just because it doesn't follow your rules.

[Marx]

I understand what you say when you say that it bugs you when I say something isn't origami because it doesn't fit my rules that I set for myself. I'm sorry for that. But I'm arguing that if we truly wanted to have a difference between purist and non purist origami, at some point, we'd need to set a standard, agree?

[malachi]

If I take your premise as valid, yes, there has to be some way of defining the word.

However, I don't see a need to distinguish with a concrete set of rules, because each person has their own set of rules that are meaningful to them. You would have to get everyone to agree to one set of rules to have a standard, but that would require changing a lot of minds. And even if you did that, what point would it have?

[Alexandre]

For example, when teaching children origami, it may be easier to get them interested if they can fold a more realistic looking simple model that requires a few cuts to add details rather than a more abstract simple model that is "pure".

This is called kirigami, not origami.

[Marx]

If I take your premise as valid, yes, there has to be some way of defining the word.

However, I don't see a need to distinguish with a concrete set of rules, because each person has their own set of rules that are meaningful to them. You would have to get everyone to agree to one set of rules to have a standard, but that would require changing a lot of minds. And even if you did that, what point would it have?

aside from contests and such, none. This is like I said a few posts ago about how I don't care what you call models you make on your own. The purpose of arguing purism is simply to establish what pure is. There must be few folders who truly make a model and ask themselves if it applies to pure rules.

[Ondrej.Cibulka]

Do you use paper with special pattern for for example giraffe, turtle etc. you know, what I mean?

[Daydreamer]

I actually prefer paper with plain colours although there are some very nice papers with patterns out there. I also love John Montroll's great Spotted Giraffe and Striped Tiger and Zebra where you get the patterns without the need of patterned paper, and I prefer this to using special paper

[Marx]

Do you use paper with special pattern for for example giraffe, turtle etc. you know, what I mean?

I know what you're trying to get at with that one. If I said that I do (which I don't) I'd be a hypocrit. I tend to like to use just plain white.