It occurs to me that including a chapter about origami (its history, applications, etc.) in introductory art history textbooks would be a good way to open up this field to other players. Have you noticed that there is nothing about paper folding in undergraduate textbooks such as Gardner’s Art Through the Ages (probably the most widely used textbook for introductory art courses in US universities)? Anyone who completes a background in areas such as art history, museum studies, or gallery management has virtually no knowledge of paper folding and its rich range of ramifications. Making people aware during their formation years would be a good starting point to stimulate more research and change perceptions. Now, don’t ask me how to help introduce that chapter into textbooks… At least there are some encyclopedia articles, well written, such as Nick Robinson’s article in Encyclopaedia Britannica. But this is not at all enough. I’m talking about a well researched chapter ranging a wide scope of areas in which folding (paper, metal, etc) is being applied. Laura Rozenberg
> On Sep 11, 2025, at 11:00 AM, Lorenzo via Origami > <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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] > <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>
