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
