Section A: To cut or not to cut?
Section B: One piece or more?
Section C: Square or other shape?
Section D: Use of glue and others
 

What is Origami?
 

I start this discussion with "what is origami"?

The word "Origami" is a Japanese word that means "paper folding".

To some it is just simply "paper folding", to others, it means folding uncut without use of glue from a square piece of paper.
 

I like to generate some discussion on this and put up the interesting ones here. Bear in mind, I reserve the right whether to put it up or not. I reserve the right to edit it as well, however, please alert me if I had accidentally distort the meaning during the editing.

You can send your views to lhs1701@yahoo.com.
 

My opinions on this matter does not reflect the opinions of the group of origami enthusiasts here in Singapore. They are my own opinion. My fellow origami enthusiasts in Singapore, in general, do not agree with me on this matter. Most prefer the stricter definition of origami.

You may want to read what others has to say in their own website. I will add more links when I come across them.

• Origami philosophy by David Petty

Looking back on past British Origami Society (BOS)'s articles in the magazine, my first response to this was prompted by the following article that appeared in BOS 188 Feb 98 Page 24 in Folder’s Corner by Nick Robinson.

To cut or not to cut?
Whilst browsing through Marco for post-Christmas bargains, I spotted a book called “Papercraft & Origami” by one Cheryl Owen. It was an unusual format, with the book containing in a plastic case. On closer inspection, I saw this was a scissors and glue. In fact, there was only one design in the book that didn’t need cutting and that one needed glue! I’m writing to the publishers to point out the misuse of our favourite word, but it’s made me have a closer look at the merits (or otherwise) of cutting in origami.
 

Bob Allen's spider (not in original BOS article)

Kenneway’s “Complete Origami” has examples of “Kirikomi Origami”, where scissors are used to make cuts into, but not remove, the paper. Bob Allen’s “Spider” makes use of four cuts to create quite a refined design, Whilst the model could be made using folding along, making it would be many degrees more difficult. I have a fading T-shirt from America with a classic “No Scissors” logo on it, but many people seem reluctant to praise or condemn the activity. The venerable Mick Guy suggested as far back as BOM81 (April ’80) that it was perhaps time the BOS officially took a stand against cutting origami. To the best of my knowledge, the idea was never formally mooted. Could it be that our apparently indifferent attitude to cutting has made it possible for the general public to be confused about the issue? The classic Kan no mado (1845) and Sembazru Orikata (1797) both make extensive use of cuts and Japan has perhaps retained an acceptance of the method for longer than most other countries. Randlett’s “Best of” and “Art of” included cut designs, but these seemed to act as a spur to create the same fold without the cuts, regardless of difficulty.

The case against
The very name points out that we should fold rather than cut. Where’s the fun and challenge if we simply choose to cut all the fiddly bits? The limitation of “folding only” has led to major technical breakthroughs. The appeal of origami is partly due to the restrictions of its methods; you can do it any place, any time and people are impressed! They would be far less impressed if they thought scissors were involved. If we start using tools such as scissors, we might as well paint the stripes on as well. Cutting paper takes away the spiritual purity that comes from a perfect square.

The case for
Traditional Japanese origami used cuts, so why shouldn’t we? The idea that everything has to be folded is imposed by people who revel in the complex techniques needed to produce solutions. I’d sooner take 20 minutes with cuts than 5 hours without. Less able folders can produce impressive results with a single cut. People have folded from rectangles, triangles and even circles – is this not bending the rules as much as using scissors would? Max Hulme has said that he wouldn’t have come up with his uncut “chess board” had he not used cuts in an earlier experiment. If we rule out scissors completely, we may miss out on the pure techniques that might arise from cutting. Most people wouldn’t know if a design was cut, so where’s the problem?

What do you think?

I responded to this article by sending a long reply. I do not have the original letter but this was what was printed in BOS 190 June 98 Page 11 in Folder’s Corner by Nick Robinson.

Lim Hee Sen
Sent a long article, of which I present edited highlights: “Origami” means “paper folding”. It does not mean “no cutting”. “The case against” paragraph of BOS 188, pointed out correctly that “origami” means “paper-folding”. I agree that origami in its purest form must not have cutting. Again there is no mention that it must come from a square. I believe a lot of origami enthusiasts are unnecessarily restricting themselves. If they do it as a challenge, I wish them “good luck: and send me your diagrams. They should not put forth a definition and restrict everyone. If the definition of “pure origami” is just for the purpose of classification, fine again, make the restriction “fold uncut from a square” as one possible definition. I prefer a broader definition of just “fold uncut” with no restriction of starting from a square.

I agree cutting should be very limited. I agree too that the restriction of “folding” only has led to some fantastic advances. These are for people looking for challenges, I have great admiration for them. As for impressing people, I like to do that but it is never my major concern. The reason for impressing people is to remind them that paper-folding is not “kids-stuff”. It is a work of art and science. I am more interested in the pleasure I derive from it. If I can share this pleasure with others, so much the better. If most of you think that people are very impress that the model is folded without cutting, I only partially agree. From my own experience, I find I can impress them even more if I show how simple the model can be folded. They can do it too!

“Traditional Japanese origami used cuts, so why shouldn’t we?” I am not in favour of this argument. We must progress with the times. I am still in favour of using cuts within limits. We need not follow the Japanese. We need to improve on it but we must remember its roots and history. I prefer models which use cuts to simplify the process of folding rather than to fold a complex and very, very thick model. For example I like spiders, huge black ones. I use to fold two-piece ones (again I have no objection to multi-piece models for the same reason stated in the article) and complex one piece models. When I learned of Bob Allen’s spider from Kenneway’s “Complete Origami”, now, I rarely fold other kind of spiders. I can easily teach this model to just anyone even kids.

Whether you should cut or not, I suppose you leave it to the individual. There is a need to respect another person’s point of view rather to force another to conform. I will still carry on cutting as long as the effect is worth it. I have made many paper models before that has many cuttings and an equal number of folding. I do not know whether you call this “origami” or “kirigami” but I suppose like all art form, there is no black and white, there will always be instances where the best of each will be combined to produce a fantastic work of art.

Revisit
I have more comments after revisiting the article printed in BOS 188 Feb 98 Page 24 in Folder’s Corner by Nick Robinson and my reply printed in BOS 190 June 98 Page 11 in Folder’s Corner by Nick Robinson. I will comment on BOS 188 article.

My stand has not changed since 1998.

In the comments below, I use the term "pure origami" to mean "folding uncut models from a square without the use of glue".

Paragraph 3 of the article mentioned that BOS has not taken a stand against cutting in origami. My personal opinion is that BOS must not. Doing do will alienate BOS from others who still practice it. If BOS takes a stand and say "if there is cutting, then it is not origami", I suspect by doing so, BOS is actually shooting herself. However, BOS can still define what is pure origami and what is not and specify that this is BOS's standards. Any origami ethusiast would then be free to decide to aspire to meet BOS's standards.

I go shopping for origami books frequently. There are many, many books where there is at least one model within with at least one cut. Even books from Toshie Takahama, Florence Sakade including more recent origami authors, there are numerous children origami books require a cut or two to simplify the model. This is for teaching children or beginners. Although the experts revel in the purity and joy of folding uncut from a square without the use of glue, please spare a though for those who are just starting. Let the beginners enjoy simple folding with cut(s) and achieve something. Eventually these "beginners" will begin to explore and discover the "truth" for themselves.

I advocate telling a class what is "origami" and what is "pure origami". Even our children start with addition and subtraction before proceeding to algebra, trigonometry and other more difficult branches of mathematics. Children will start these addition and subtraction under the decimal system. If they proceed further, they will find out about other number systems and other systems where addition and subtraction may not always work. Hence for beginners, we can tell them what is "pure origami" but to tell them if they use cuts, then what they are folding is not origami is going a bit too far. They have to start simply with less restrictions.

I have explored and collect models that I can teach to begineers for over 20 years. In my collection, I have many models that do not require cutting or use of glue, often such models are rather basic and "crude" and can satisfy a beginner. Usually I teach these first. However, not all are that easily satisfied. There are some who insist on models with more defined outward appearance, ones that looked better and more detailed. The problem is that as beginners, they do not have the necessary background knowledge and skills to fold such a model. For this group of people, I have a collection of models that require cutting or mult-piece model that may require use of glue. These models usually look very impressive and very easy to fold. These are the models that can be used to encourage the more ambitious ones. If they persist, I am sure, eventually they may go for "pure origami" models. This at least is after they have acquired the necessary skills.

If beginners are being "forced" to fold "pure origami", I am sure a lot will give up before long. Then we will lose this group of people that we can nature till they obtain the necessary skills and knowledge to indulge in "pure origami". I, for one, am more interested in teaching people the joys of folding and fiddling around with paper, rather than the satisfaction of folding "pure origami". I am not against "pure origami" as I indulged in it every now and then, depending on my mood. However, I derive more joy in simple origami than in "pure origami". It is a matter of preference.

Before ending this section, I like to state that it is for the reason of enjoying simple but effective models (uncut and without the use of glue if possible but not a restriction for me), I enjoy models from Paul Jackson and other creative people who enjoy minimalistic folding. I like the multi-piece simple models from the Japanese. They can be very cute and so easy to teach.

I got an excellent book recently, “Origami to Astonish and Amuse by Jeremy Shafer”. There is a topic “Origami Purism” page 17 to 20 of the book greatly interest me. There is a passage worth quoting: “As origami designers’ abilities improved, there arose an unofficial set of rules governing what was allowed and what wasn’t, particularly in the West. In general, an origami figure from an uncut sheet was better than one from a cut sheet, a single sheet was more desirable than two; and a fold from a square was preferred over any other starting shape.  (Origami Sculptures by John Montroll, page 9)” I could not have put it better myself and I agree to this whole heartedly.

Let me extract some other points in the article and look at it one-by-one. I am not quoting from the book but summarising in my own words.

1) When you design, you should have these restrictions in mind, because

• Lose these restrictions and you lose a sense of direction
• Has a set of guidelines which to work with
• Aware of how much paper to work with (from square)
• To ration out paper

2) “When non-purist cut paper, they are actually cutting up the art, destroying the wholeness of the art”

My comments – In principle, I agree with this too.

3) Jeremy described an occasion when he was folding a crab till he reached the part where it needed 4 cuts, he was so disappointed that he didn’t finish the model.

My comments – I too had come across such a crab but I had completed the model and taught it now and then. I was not disappointed, since it was easy to fold and easy to teach. It is easy for beginners to learn and appreciate. I do stress cutting is not recommended for origami but for beginners rules can be relaxed.

4) Being easier to fold should not justify using more than one sheet, one approach is to use fewer appendages, e.g. 3-legged giraffe, or to fold with fewer features, that is, abstract models.

My comments – Some people may not agree that a 3- legged giraffe is acceptable although I personally find it acceptable. I like folding abstract models and often used it to tease beginners. Usually beginners cannot recognise abstract models but if they do, generally they have a background of some other forms of art or they are likely to have great potential. I usually like to think that the “essence” of the object had been captured even if all detailed features are not. If a beginner can recognise the “essence”, then this beginner is likely to have great potential.

5) “John Montroll and Robert Lang had demonstrated that practically any species of animal can be made out of just one square.” … designing purist origami is part of what makes it fun.

My comments – These are two really great creators. Personally I find folding Robert Lang’s models rather stressful to fold. Although I collect all Robert Lang’s books and fold from it now and then, I fold only when I need to impress people with detailed one-piece models.

6) “It is of utmost importance that the folding procedure be as aesthetically pleasing as possible.”

My comments – I couldn’t agree more. The folding procedure must be pleasing to the person folding. As for whether something is “aesthetically pleasing”, this is usually a personal opinion. If you find folding a complicated model pleasing, then by no means, please proceed. For some, especially beginners, folding complicated models is likely to be beyond them.

7) “Cutting is a primitive attribute to be outgrown.”

My comments – This I do not agree. To me, it is just another tool, another method. I do not grudge people who prefer to fold models uncut from a square without the use of glue but please do not impose this standard on people who may not want to be restricted. I guess my “relaxed standard” is because I do a lot of other crafts besides origami, and these crafts use scissors and glue a lot, thus I do not feel restrained not to use it in origami. I personally feel that people should experiment with the use of glue and scissors to explore other ways and methods but still bear in mind what “pure origami” is and to adopt it where possible. If you like the restrictions, then by all means, proceed too.

8) Cutting paper is sacrilege.

My comments – Not for me. For me, it is another method.

Modular folding Stellated Dodecahedron - Fuse  Dodecahedron - Lewis Simon & Robert Neale

Golden Venture unit folding

Multi-piece models

by Akira Yoshizawa

by Toyoaki Kawai

Modular folding vs multi-piece models vs Golden Venture units models - 1
Many people will not agree with what I am about to say next but I like to say it and see what others have to say and see if they can change my mind.

What is the difference between modular folding and Golden Venture (GV) units?

Both require repeated folding of one or more similar units and a lot of assembling required. When you really think of it, they do not differ much. So if modular folding is origami, then so is GV folding.

Do not forget there is a another category of folding where you fold many similar units (not the GV unit) and used them assemble animals. If I recall correctly, this was started by David Petty.

What about multi-piece models? Actually, this group is closer to origami than modular folding or GV folding. The main problem with mult-piece model especially if used to fold animals is that the use of glue is required. Then what if locking is employed and no glue is required? Both modular folding and GV folding has a very stong element of assembling. Assembling skill is more important than folding since folding is usually simple.

It has been defined that to start folding a model from a square is "purer" than starting from any other shape?

I believe this is due to historical influence than any other factors.

When we purchase our origami papers, generally it is pre-cut as squares. Traditional models generally start from squares too.

Is there a mathematical reason for squares being "purer" than the rest?

What about silver rectangles? I like them because you can cut them into half, you change its size and you get 2 silver rectanges. Try that on a square. Cutting a square into quarters does not count. My definition of this, is just one cut.

What about triangles? A dot is one dimensional, a line is two dimensional, since we cannot fold  from a line, we can drop the idea. The most basic shape of paper we can fold from and is the simplest two dimentional object is a triangle. So why can't take a triangular paper or rather an equilateral triangle as being "purer" than a square?

If there are mathematical reasons or non-emotional reasons for a square being "purer", I am interested to hear it.

I happen to like other shapes, hexagons, pentagons, octagons and circles, but I do not like the tedious task of cutting them into shape. If only they are readily available, I am sure they would be more widely used in origami.

No argument on this. Using glue should be avoided as much as possible.

I believe even among the "purists", there will be some who will "cheat" by using a bit of glue (or hardening spray) to keep a model in shape so it can withstand the rigours of exhibition and possibly rough handling by admirers.

So what do you think?

please give me you opinion by writing to me at:  lhs1701@yahoo.com.