The Origami Forum

Jocking with Kafar in THIS post I've come with this question, and I'd like to know your opinion about.

I mean, I've folded several not-square sheets (mostly rectangles, triangles, pentagons and hexagons), and I've seen real origami masterpiece done with not-square sheet too (ninja shadow is one of them, for example).
But I've also seen that many origami authors "force" their starting sheet as a regular square (Lang Treemaker has the function to normalize the CP to a square, and not to an equilateral triangle, for example).

So, as the title says "Does Pure Origami belong to regular square only?"

I personally believe that 'pure' origami can be from any shape (even if most models come from square) i draw the line with cutting and pasting though... i know that technically still counts as paper folding... but it just... disturbs me somehow...

It's tough to vote on this one. In the purest sense a square definitely wins out, but I do appreciate rectangular starting sheets. Apart from such models as the mentioned ninja shadow, or Lang's clock, there's the whole area of dollar bill origami, too. However, I personally do not like starting sheets with non-perpendicular edges.

So I can't really vote, because there's no suitable option available. Yes, a square is definitely pure, but not all regular shapes are pure to me. So my view on it is very simple:

start with a rectangle.

If it happens to be a square that's fine, if not it's also fine

IMHO, folding with different shapes of paper is fine, only as long as the design isn't dependent on a special shape to work.

Tessellations are a good example of this....

ahudson is right it is okay to use any paper shape you want many of my modle designes are from rectangles.

Visionary wrote: start with a rectangle.

If it happens to be a square that's fine, if not it's also fine

To consider a square as an exception of rectangles is a very interesting point of view

I know that it is not so, but when I have opened this poll I've considered rectangles as regular shape.
Mistery of an origami mind...

Starting with any shape is okay, so long as there are no cutting or gluing.

Although I do prefer a square because it's much easier to prepare than say...a 3x2 rectangle or a pentagon, etc.

It doesn't matter what shape you use, as long as it doesn't have more than four corners or uses any cutting. No pentagrams or hexagrams or horned stars or any of that evil satanic stuff. But I prefer to use a square though, mainly because I'm lazy and that squares are easier to make. Squares are also the only shape that has four intersecting points of symmetry that isn't used to summon demons.

I think that pure origami should only involve the use of squares. I don't like working with anything that isn't square. Sometimes I do work with other proportions, but I don't consider that to be pure origami; especially if I need strange proportions, like in Lang's Complete Book of Origami.

Pure Origami : Squares only.
Origami : All shapes.

Pure needs to be defined first-is is what most people consider pure, what you consider pure, or what you think "purists" think is pure? I think it is the second one-what you believe is pure. Every origamist has their own idea of what is pure, and mostly that is one square/piece of paper, no cuts.

I think it is fine to use any shape of paper, as long as it doesn't have holes or slits cut into it. Squares, triangles, rectangles, pentagons, hexagons, etc. are fine by me. Circles and highly irregular shapes are more bothersome to me-I will probably never use them, but I don't mind so much if others do.

I've deliberately not given a definition of pure origami, just because I'd like to understand what pure means for you all.

I really fold every sheet I find around me!
the paper napkin and the little paper sugarbag at restaurent, the train/plane ticket, the supermarket receit and even more.
For me pure is definitively no cut, no glue and one sheet for one model (except for modular origami).

this is confusing and I have many ideas for all options so I cannot decide on a vote. I guess that a square is the main shape but hexagons+ pentagons seem to be good for flowers... but don't try nonogons+ decagons, it doesn't work well ( Believe me, I've tried...).

My interest in origami and teaching it to beginners does not allow me to comply with "pure" origami as I understand it based on what was defined rigidly by others.

Like all things in this world, what is pure origami?
What is paper?
What is a mountain fold?
What is a valley fold?
No one really knows until someone in authority, an expert in the field, defines this. Once defined, it is accepted by all or at least by most. Once the definition is made clearly and understood by all, any deviation from it is not pure origami.

What is a table?
Once this is defined, even a child knows it.

I am ok with any definition of pure origami if acceptable by most people because personally I doubt my origami is pure. My origami tends to mix with other kinds of crafts. I tend to make it simple to teach so I need to combine elements that make it easily understood by beginners.

My personal feel is no one should feel bounded by definitions of origami. Do what you like best, enjoy it. If what you do is pure origami, ok, if not, so be it. Such definitions is generally for people who wants to understand or know what is pure origami. It is also for people who have no understanding of origami and will surely ask for definition of origami and how it differs from other papercraft.

lhs1701, I'm quite astonished from your answer.
I think your thought it's a little bit too generalistic.

As I have alredy said, more than one time, it is far from me to put any bound on origami.
I'd only like to know what for any of you means pure origami. That's all.
If there would be an accepted definition of that, I'd agree with you this topic would be useless. Since it is not so, it is interesting to know what all the pepole of this comunity think about.

Adding questions like:

lhs1701 wrote: What is paper?
What is a mountain fold?
What is a valley fold?

means to not have understood the meaning of this post (beside the fact that paper, mountain fold and valley fold are extremely clear concepts, and you shoud know it very well since you are telling us that you teach origami to beginners, so you shoud have to be an expert ).

So don't make me say what I didn't and let's go with this intersting discussion, sharing our experience and thoughts

lhs1701 wrote: What is paper?
What is a mountain fold?
What is a valley fold?

This is all very true. Indeed, few people outside of the origami community are aware that what you can buy in the supermarket as 'origami paper' is not at all used by the great origami artists. Probably even less are aware that many of the great masters actually create their own 'paper' with each one using a slightly different one. And then it is not even decided that you require paper for origami. Other than the word 'kami' what actually is required is nothing more than a material that can hold creases.

Something slightly off-topic: As for the mountain and valley fold definition I wonder if there has been any work on generalizing these into curved folds of various angles? Basically mountain and valley folds would then just be 180 or 360 degree folds based on a straight line curve.

My personal feel is no one should feel bounded by definitions of origami. Do what you like best, enjoy it. If what you do is pure origami, ok, if not, so be it.

I think deciding on what's pure was never meant to be used for discrimination. After all, origami is a form of art and as such there cannot be any rules other than those you decide to honor for yourself. If someone creates an amazing piece of work using cuts and glue I do admire it just as well. The only question to me - where the definition of 'pure' comes into the picture - is whether I admire it as a general piece of art, or whether I consider it a piece of origami art. But as long as it is adorable it doesn't really matter all that much.


One more provocative question:
Considering that given a rectangle we can easily create a square form with one fold, and although I cannot think of a quick proof of it now, I assume that given any polygon you can transform it into a square simply by folding. And vice versa it is well-known that you can create any polygon from a square form. (to be more precise I should say 'simple polygon' or 'Jordan polygon')

Therefore, if you start with a square, or with a rectangle, or with any other polygon (which might even have been created by folding and cutting) is still equivalent to folding from a square and could be considered pure origami. You might even consider it pure if there was cutting as part of the final shaping steps as long as the cutting still results in a polygonal paper if you unfolded the model.