What "isn't" origami? -- Then versus Now

General discussion about Origami, Papers, Diagramming, ...
Post Reply
sattej
Newbie
Posts: 28
Joined: June 23rd, 2015, 4:51 pm

What "isn't" origami? -- Then versus Now

Post by sattej »

Today I saw a question in another forum from a beginner asking 'What isn't allowed in origami?' and there were a lot of great responses about all kinds of dividing features in models that tend to split opinions on whether it is "pure" origami or not, or even what "pure" origami is supposed to mean. The usual breakdowns:

* Squares versus triangles, rectangles, silver rectangles, other polygons
* Single sheet versus multiple sheet
* Straight folds versus curved folds
* Use of glue/sizing or not
* Use of cutting or not (and at what point)
* Painting
* Taping

I'll be honest there are a few things in that list that I personally do not like in my own models. But I have also broken almost every single "rule" at some point or another. I wonder what other people think, these days, about what origami "is" or is "supposed to be". And the original post caused me to remember a past interpretation that I read and laughed over in the past, which I wanted to share with you all today as a perspective into how it was historically viewed by some people, and how much has changed! This particular passage is by Isao Honda, taken as a snippet from the Preface of his book All About Origami from 1960. Basically, Honda is speaking negatively/talking trash in these paragraphs, taking time in his book to specifically insult Akira Yoshizawa. The hate is remarkable:

"... Take a look at a popular Origami, the Crane. Restricted to only four corners and straight lines, it is not possible to make a perfectly formed natural crane. However even being restricted in this manner, we can create a modern geometric type of beauty that is related to the real bird. There is at present a form of Origami in which straight lines are forgotten and the performer twists and bends his paper to make the desired forms. To my thinking this is not true Origami but a counterfeit art. It is in fact merely a form of paper-mache.
Japanese are noted for being skillful with their fingers. From ancient times the ability of making wheat gluten and flour has been passed down. These however are only individual skills in themselves and, as I have said before, have no contemporary significance. Any child by simply following instructions can realize the pleasure and entertainment that comes with doing real Origami, but by these other abortive methods this basic quality of Origami is completely lost."

Wow.

Performer. Twists and bends. Counterfeit art. Paper-mache. No contemporary significance. Abortive methods (ouch).

Obviously Honda had a different perspective about what origami was compared to Yoshizawa. But nowadays, Yoshizawa's work is largely accepted as more-or-less pure origami and many folders openly embrace wet-folding by methylcellulose or carboxymethylcellulose (in Yoshizawa's day, as Honda calls out, it was basically wheat paste).

My questions for you all: Should we even be talking about "pure" origami? Should we even perceive origami as "pure" or not-"pure"? Do you yourselves still have feelings about what is-and-isn't (I personally strongly dislike tape, heh)? How would you explain to a beginner what origami is? Just an open ended question, I would love to see where this discussion could go. And I hope everyone enjoys the little Isao Honda quote as much as I did when I first stumbled across it! Cheers.
User avatar
Gerardo
Buddha
Posts: 2119
Joined: March 4th, 2010, 2:36 am
Contact:

Re: What "isn't" origami? -- Then versus Now

Post by Gerardo »

It would be great for this to turn into a discussion. Hey, I had no idea about Mr. Honda disliking the work of Mr. Yoshizawa. I agree with you... wow!

In my case, I prefer an open definition of "origami". I like this one by Joseph Wu, "a form of paper art where folding is the primary technique to achieve an effect". Source: https://britishorigami.info/lister/what_is_ori.php

I'm OK with there being a name for the strictest form of the origami rules. Although, I wish it wasn't "pure origami"; I'm not fond of the implication of there being impure origami as well. I find it a bit insulting, and I personally think the selection of the word "pure" was a bit capricious if we have in mind that the first attempt of origami rules was only in 1956 (so the contemporary age) with Robert Harbin's book "Paper Magic", so this concept of pure origami isn't really tied to any millenary spiritual beliefs. Source: http://www.britishorigami.info/lister/glue.php

Continuing, I dislike the perspective of some young complex folders now-a-days that a model with a cut isn't origami, but it is origami to use foil, MC, or even glue. I'd say all of it is just as impure (in origami terms); which I don't mean it's bad per se. I just think they shouldn't be so discriminatory of origami that uses cuts when they deviated from "purity" as well. I've heard people state that an origami model with a single cut is kirigami. I feel that now-a-days "kirigami" is just a theoretical mat for origamists to sweep the models with cuts out of sight. Furthermore, I wonder if there's a kirigami hard-core community, like there is one for origami. If so, do they say things like: "Ugh! That model has just one cut, and it has too many folds. That's origami... ewww!"?

I enjoy this type of questions. Thank you for sharing your point of view sattej and inviting us to do the same :).
Last edited by Gerardo on June 28th, 2021, 10:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
.
My awesome website: https://www.neorigami.com
and Instagram account: https://instagram.com/NeorigamiCom
SunnyLeslie
Newbie
Posts: 17
Joined: May 17th, 2021, 3:47 pm

Re: What "isn't" origami? -- Then versus Now

Post by SunnyLeslie »

It seems to me that the old definitions are no longer relevant. The modern world is actively developing, art and handicrafts are also developing. New materials and new ideas appear, and this requires new solutions. I don't see any problem with "breaking the rules" of classic origami.
bethnor
Buddha
Posts: 1341
Joined: August 17th, 2006, 9:57 pm

Re: What "isn't" origami? -- Then versus Now

Post by bethnor »

eh. is that an actual quote from honda in english, or translated?
Froy
Senior Member
Posts: 421
Joined: March 21st, 2008, 9:24 pm
Location: Mexico

Re: What "isn't" origami? -- Then versus Now

Post by Froy »

The things have been twisted a lot even by the community itself.

There should not be "what is not and what is allowed in origami", why? Simple, think about wet folding. It is just not only the paper even if the water evaporate or such you are still alterating the paper (doesn't matter if it is for until it dries out). The paper by itself wouldn't retain the shape given to it if you didn't use water. Why using glue, tape or cuts or many sheets should not be allowed?

People should stick to the old origins of the therm. Origami is the art of folding paper. It is a piece of Origami (a product of the process of folding paper). Origami is not the product it self, a crane, a dragon or a flower. Origami is the process.
Pobody's nerfect.

My Flickr
sattej
Newbie
Posts: 28
Joined: June 23rd, 2015, 4:51 pm

Re: What "isn't" origami? -- Then versus Now

Post by sattej »

bethnor wrote: June 23rd, 2021, 6:29 am eh. is that an actual quote from honda in english, or translated?
It is a direct English reading from the English-language version of the text. So, I am unsure of the translation source but it isn't a machine-translated modern interpretation.
bethnor
Buddha
Posts: 1341
Joined: August 17th, 2006, 9:57 pm

Re: What "isn't" origami? -- Then versus Now

Post by bethnor »

even a direct person made translation can lose nuance. see every anime that has ever been dubbed.
Kabuntan
Super Member
Posts: 196
Joined: February 4th, 2014, 5:52 pm

Re: What "isn't" origami? -- Then versus Now

Post by Kabuntan »

I see those various origami "rules" mainly as self-imposed restrictions.
For instance, designing a Chinese dragon within a long strip of paper is "not so hard" (or so they say...), but with the limiting rule "one square of paper", it becomes more of a challenge.

Also, as an anecdotical example: I mainly follow the "one sheet, no glue, no cut" because I often fold while commuting by train or bus. It wouldn't be easy to deal with modular models; or to bring & use glue or MC (or even water for wet-folding); and it might even be seen as a threat if I were to take out a pair of scissors or a paperknife in a crowded vehicle. (^_^)
User avatar
Sunburst
Senior Member
Posts: 432
Joined: January 22nd, 2007, 10:34 pm
Location: Canada

Re: What "isn't" origami? -- Then versus Now

Post by Sunburst »

From my point of view, the majority of origamists adhere to the purist rules of «single uncut square» as it is much more impressive and challenging, and they're not exactly wrong. When I started doing origami, I liked models using cuts/multiple papers a lot less than ones using the purist rules. I think the problem with this mindset is completely rejecting the possibilities from breaking those rules. I've used rectangles, multiple papers and cuts in my own designs to get very interesting results without feeling like I was cheating. To me, as long as what you achieve with a piece of paper is primarily folds, it's still origami. Of course, in the end it's always a matter of personal preference.
SunnyLeslie
Newbie
Posts: 17
Joined: May 17th, 2021, 3:47 pm

Re: What "isn't" origami? -- Then versus Now

Post by SunnyLeslie »

Sunburst wrote: June 28th, 2021, 9:48 pm From my point of view, the majority of origamists adhere to the purist rules of «single uncut square» as it is much more impressive and challenging, and they're not exactly wrong. When I started doing origami, I liked models using cuts/multiple papers a lot less than ones using the purist rules. I think the problem with this mindset is completely rejecting the possibilities from breaking those rules. I've used rectangles, multiple papers and cuts in my own designs to get very interesting results without feeling like I was cheating. To me, as long as what you achieve with a piece of paper is primarily folds, it's still origami. Of course, in the end it's always a matter of personal preference.
It seems to me that any kind of art is flexible enough. If we consider painting, then look how many styles there are, the paintings are not alike. So why should there be uniform rules in origami without any creative deviations?
User avatar
mkosmul
Newbie
Posts: 45
Joined: September 24th, 2016, 10:00 pm
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Contact:

Re: What "isn't" origami? -- Then versus Now

Post by mkosmul »

Origami Profiles by John Smith has an analysis of different ways origami can diverge from the purest form, so it's a good starting point as a list of techniques which some folders may find acceptable and others not.
Post Reply