Hi Tung, I continue to notice that the strongest contributions, which tend to define origami as art, this desire to elevate the technique of origami to art, come from creative origamists (e.g. Manuel Sirgo, whom you mention).
For me, the exact opposite should happen: people who are not involved in origami but are knowledgeable about art (academy teachers and curators, for example) should approach our world and perceive and reveal its artistic value. If this has not yet happened, perhaps it is because the time is not yet right, and I see no reason to force the issue, especially from within. I strongly believe in the value of expertise, and I would really like people who know their stuff to analyse the technique of origami and its expressive potential for the individual (or artist). Because one of the criteria for recognising a piece of art is that it conveys the artist's feelings, their intimate need to express themselves, their vision... and so on. Therefore, in my opinion, it is an external, educated and competent “audience” that can understand whether an origami production is a sufficiently valid tool for artistic expression. What we simply like is not necessarily art, and the keypoint is here in my opinion: we all like origami so much, we love origami, and therefore we can't accept that it is not (yet) considered Art. I also love ice cream a lot, but it is not art (for example because -but not only- it does not express any artist's wish/feeling/desire/meaning/concepts..., even if it's artisanal). In my involvement with the world of contemporary art, I have met curators and gallery owners who have impressed me with their expertise and analytical skills... and so, for me, as long as it is not the world of contemporary art (with its enthusiasts) that deals with origami, I remain sceptical. What I know for sure is that we origami artists cannot, and should not, be the ones to say whether origami is art, precisely because it is a concept that changes with the times and, above all, represents the sensibilities of societies, era by era... and these trends are the subject of analysis and study, in which we have no expertise. In general, I tend to be allergic to anything that is 'self-styled' or ‘self-proclaimed’ (and hence my opposition to our growing need to elevate Origami to Art at all costs). Finally, I completely disagree with: " There's something absurd about the question “what is art?” " because art (or perhaps art above all else) deserves to be studied, understood and only then reasonably defined. When some of us are confused about finding a definition of art, it is because we do not know what art is, we do not know its origins, characteristics, purposes, limits... but nevertheless we want to talk about it and we pretend to know that Origami is Art. If nothing matters, there is nothing to save. Ciao, Lorenzo On Thu, 11 Sept 2025 at 14:30, Tung Ken Lam <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Lorenzo, Manuel and others, > > I address a couple of specific points for those who have not read or > viewed the talks cited earlier. > > Lorenzo Lucioni: All of your links are related to us origamists. Is there > anyone who is not an origamist who has defined origami as art, or is it > only us, folders and creators, who define origami as art? > > Yes, the talks are by paperfolders and draw on other paperfolders’ > experiences and ideas, e.g. Paul Jackson, Dave Mitchell and Eric Kenneway > who concludes that origami is NOT art. > Dewi Brunet (https://cfcorigami.com/convention/cfc4-colchester) prefers > the broader term folding instead of origami because of its negative > connotations. > > However, the first two talks also draw on artists, critics and writers > outside of the world of origami, e.g. Walter Benjamin, Rich Gold, John > Berger and Grayson Perry who give valuable insights. > > Photography was mentioned because of the pithy quote, but it could equally > been any other activity like needlework or flower arranging: > > “There’s something absurd about the question ‘what is art ?’ and something > equally absurd about the fine art experts who give the impression that they > know the answer. The definition of art has changed greatly through history. > ... Only 100 years ago needlework and flower arranging were considered to > be art - while photography and film were definitely not art.” > https://timhunkin.com/95_isitart.htm > > I think that’s also what Lee Armstrong was implying, origami doesn’t have > to imitate the globalised elite art world to have value. > > Manuel Sirgo Álvarez: if [origami] not art, what is it? Useless > craftsmanship? Special decorative handiwork? > > For some, ‘mathematical art’ has the same kind of relationship with the > art world as origami does: see George Hart’s article ‘What Can We Say About > “Math/Art”?’ > https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/202404/noti2920/noti2920.html > > Manuel’s examples of amateur football might be classed as ‘folk art’ and > professional football might be ‘popular art’ (Rich Gold). > > Perhaps the last world should go to Ian Sansom from his book ‘Paper: An > Elegy’: > > “Mrs. Delany’s [paper] flowers ...[are] periodically rediscovered by > artists, writers and feminists, though Germaine Greer dismisses them > entirely … ‘women have been kept busy wasting their time.’ Greer hits the > nail on the head but entirely misses the point. Paper... is forever > reminding us that we live in the land of darkness and the shadow of death, > and that we shall all be changed, for this corruptible must put on > incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. Is paper art a waste > of time? Yes, absolutely. Of course. What isn’t?” > > > Regards, > Tung Ken > > -- Lorenzo Lucioni Duesseldorf - Germany [email protected]
