Is Origami Art?

First lets begin with the question of, "Is origami an art?" since that seems to be one of the most common matters of debate. In order to deal properly with this question we will unfortunately have to reckon with the question of, "What is Art?" For me art is the act of taking some kind of material and transforming it into something new, which then evokes a response from the observer. I think that is about as succinct a definition as I could conceive of and it's one that I think most people would agree with. Marshall Macluen said, "Art is anything you can get away with". I think that is an even more succinct definition and one that I also agree with. The truth is probably somewhere between or beyond those two points. If you want a more developed definition than that, go take an art history class - that's not what we are here to contemplate. We are trying to reckon with the question of whether origami is an art.

Origami is most often dismissed as an art form because of the structured and repetitive nature of the practice. All we are doing is folding a piece of paper according to a series of instructions to achieve a predictable result. If that is an art then paint by number sets should be considered an art. But, what about music? Most people agree that music is an art form despite the structured and repetitive nature of it. Most jazz fans agree that Miles Davis was an artist. The material he was working with was sound. He transformed it by creating patterns of notes that had never been heard before. And I think its safe to say that he "got away with it" because the world of music has never been the same since. So if a modern day trumpet player sits down to play "Kind of Blue" is he an artist? What if he does it on a saxophone? What if he adds just a few extra notes at the end and changes key? What if he plays it badly? What if he's deaf and he's playing alone in the forest and there is no one there to hear him, does it make any noise? Who cares? It's music, and its either good or it's not depending on your tastes and the skills of the performer. Origami is much the same. The person who first creates a new design is much like the composer of a piece of music. The person who folds it is the performer. The same design can be interpreted differently by different folders. The end result will be affected by variables such as choice of paper, skill of the folder and even different variations on the final folds will change the aspect of the finished piece.

So if we agree that the nature of art is somehow involved in the process of creation it would seem that origami could possibly be an art as well. However not all acts of creation are artistic ones. The mass production of screws on an assembly line is generally not considered to be art. The sound of an explosion is not thought of as music, but the cannons in the 1812 overture are. With art there seems to be a matter of context and intention that comes into play. With origami the intention is to create a visual representation of something for the viewer. The style of origami that most people think of usually involves creating simplified forms that are meant to evoke the form or idea of an animal or plant. However, there is an equally vital school of origami that is concerned solely with creating pure abstract geometric forms. But for now let us get back to origami that intends to create forms which create images of recognizable natural objects.

The nature of paper and the act of folding it create serious restrictions on the forms we can easily create with it. As a result the aesthetic of most origami designs is a simple and stylized version of what we are attempting to represent. Although there are notable exceptions to that, in designs of such complexity that they approach realism. For example see Vincent Floderer's mushrooms. This inherent tension between simplicity of form and complexity of subject is where the skill of an origami designer comes into play. This skill is more than just his or her ability to execute complex folds. A good design, especially a simplified or stylized one requires an artistic eye. The designer must look at an animal for example and think, what are the forms that define that animal. What is it that makes a butterfly look like a butterfly? What makes a swan look different than a duck? He or she must then decide how to create the folds that will distill that complex form down to a simplified but still recognizable form. There are parallels to this creative challenge in more accepted art forms, most notably in the work of minimalists like the sculptor Constantin Brancussi. Anyone interested in the creation of new origami designs would be well served to explore the work of Brancussi.

At this point it would be good to reflect back to the definition of art that I posed in the beginning of this essay. Particularly that art is the act of taking some material and transforming it into something new. For myself and for many other artists I have studied or spoken with art is more about the process of creation than the end result. I think that is why we refer to a finished piece as a work of art implying that it is the result of the art. This gets to what I see as the reason origami has endured and is still gaining in popularity. It is an art form that allows us to participate in the creative process. We might admire a piece by Brancussi but we aren't likely to go out and find a piece of marble and carve our version of it. We might love the music of Miles Davis but not many of us play the trumpet. But, with patience and practice almost any of us can fold all but the most complicated of origami designs. Thus, even if we never create an original design all of can participate in the creative process of bringing a new form to life.