The Origami Forum

malachi wrote:

Marx wrote:I first need to apologize. 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.

Marx wrote: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.

Marx wrote:Truly, the word origami does not indicate 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 efficient 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 known 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.

Marx wrote:

malachi wrote: Unit origami is one of my preferred modes.

Marx wrote: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 possibilities, 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.