Ap (may I call you Ap?)
Well, I’m not really trying to ‘attach baggage’ to the term. I’m just trying to use it in a way that reflects real life. If you stopped a thousand people on the streets and asked them, dictionary aside, whether there was a difference between skill and art, I believe they would say there was. Further, I believe that they would identify the difference as the interpretive and expressive aspects of one over the other.
Aye, this is a valid point. The only reason I even bother dealing with the semantics is that I think that knowing where a term comes from is helpful in understanding it. The point being that as the term “art” has changed in general perception, this has reflected upon what people think of when they hear the term “martial arts”…
Hmm… I’ll try to clarify my point (excuse the lack of coherency, please, I became an uncle last night, so I’m a little woozy. 
)
We use words (stating the obvious here) to communicate meaning. The meaning of any given word is dictated largely by personal experience - if you are only ever exposed to the word “banana” as referring to a small furry primate, you’re going to run into problems when someone uses it to refer to a fruit, if you see what I mean.
So when a particular word (art) mutates in it’s generally percieved meaning, this flows over to its use in any context. Hence, “martial art” comes to mean something dramatically different to the person who understands art to mean skill and the person who understands it based on some other definition.
Gah… still not quite saying it right.
In any event, semantic arguments are never really all that compelling in the first place. It’s why I always cringe whenever someone cuts and pastes the definition of ‘martial’ into one of these discussions.
Heh. I can understand that.
That said (and hypocritical though it may be): ‘Of war.’ Not ‘of brawling.’ Not ‘of self defense.’ Of war. And let’s be honest. Martial arts haven’t been used in war for an age.
Here’s the rub: I consider tactics and strategy, on both large and small scales, to be “martial arts”, as it were, because they are part of the “skills of war”. Some may disagree with me on this.
I also consider propaganda, acting, lying, cheating, stealing, seducing, and so on to be inherently essential skills “of war”…
Many people disagree with my take on these things.
And, of course, I consider the modern skills of combat (driving a tank, for example, or firing a gun) to also fall under the heading “martial arts”… of course, I haven’t had much chance to drive a tank or fly an assault aircraft, not being in the military, but that’s a little beside the point. They still, to me, fall into the category.
My ability to fight hand-to-hand with someone is a very small skillset in those terms, and given that my definition is so broad, I cannot see how I could look at, say, Musical Forms Boy and declare that he is not studying the martial arts. I would on the contrary say that it is a novel application of certain skills that fall under the heading.
Well, the word ‘warrior’ comes with a lot of baggage too. But I get your drift. If martial arts where, at one time, genuinely martial (used on the battlefield), then they’d have been called ‘soldiers’ perhaps.
Indeed.
I do find it interesting that people attach so much baggage to certain words… but that’s getting a little too far off topic.
I think that calling yourself a warrior without any direct experience of the military (or some comparable experience) is a bit silly.
I do find it amusing when people pompously declare themselves to be warriors because of the “baggage” they attach to the word. But, again, my definition of war is a little too vague and hazy to be of much use in a semantic sense… war to me is just another way of saying human interaction… 
Ok, so that was a little silly. Nevertheless, the consideration of the point that “the best fight consists of defeating your opponent before the fists start flying” is floating around my brain here. Is “War” only military conflict, or is it a wider thing? Can you have a “Cola War”, business war, etc if there is no armed conflict, or does the term war extend beyond this to the simple idea of trying to defeat an opponent… ?
But that’s different from martial arts in this day and age. Or I think it ought to be.
Fair enough. As I said before, my definitions are somewhat indistinct. I’m not a very cut-and-dried type of guy, and just have a little difficulty seeing anything as rigidly bounded. In fact, I see everything as inherently inseperable from everything else. Oddly enough, it was studying physics that taught me that you can’t in actuality isolate anything… but again, that’s off topic.
Now, realistically, she was never going to be a fighter. Or a soldier. Or a ‘warrior.’ But if an 80-year-old woman can walk two flights of stairs three or four times a week to train sticks with a bunch of younger men and women, then I’ll be ****ed if I’m going to judge her ‘unworthy’ of the title ‘martial artist.’ She overcame more, achieved more, and worked harder than me or anyone else in the joint. And she probably couldn’t have cared less whether people considered her a martial artist. But I figure that she deserves the title just as much, if not more, than I do.
Here’s my thing: I cannot, really, consider that the title “martial artist” is valuable, or carries worth. I certainly admire the lady’s determination and tenacity - would like to have more of it myself - but as time goes on I find it more and more difficult to get into the mindset of judging people on such criteria. Is Joe Kiai more or less ‘worthy’ of the term martial artist than Bob Kickass?.. I dunno. I don’t think I can get into the mindset to have an opinion. Is he a ‘better’ martial artist?.. it doesn’t compute with me. He’s **** good at what he does… good for him. It’s not what I do, but then I don’t own a car either. It’s irrelevant. Why should I care, and what earthly good does it do for me to try and dictate these things to others?
The only judgement I see of any use to me in these terms is the judgement of whether or not this person has something they can teach me that I want to learn right now. All else aside from that smacks, to me, of a form of arrogance (which also, betimes, has its uses).
Nothing is worthless, given the right context.
(Please forgive this paragraph if it sounds accusatory. It’s not intended to. I know this isn’t what you were suggesting.)
Oh, I didn’t for a second think it was intended to be accusatory… but it wouldn’t likely have mattered if it were. I’d still try to debate the point intelligently. (Note the word ‘try’)
Now, I know a 70±year-old woman is different from the tournament wizard with the luminescent kama. But what it comes down to is this: People are going to have their own perspectives on what we do, as you said. And while I may think that Joe Kiai is kind of a tool, I’m not going to tell him what he should and should not consider himself. How he views and describes himself is his business. To my mind, martial arts have become a very varied field of endeavor. Some aspects of it make me roll my eyes. Others, I dig. But I’m going to try and maintain enough respect for the people around me to let them make those same sorts of judgments for themselves. Telling people that I disagree with that they have to find something else to call themselves just seems… daft.
claps hands, bows
Nicely put. Not quite my take, but rather close enough and more coherent for me to applaud.
I doubt that.
You’re too kind, but thank you.
I thought it was just fine. Thanks for responding.
You’re welcome. It’s a subject I find terribly interesting.
-geoff
