Blah, blah, blah…UFC…MMA…“skillsets”…ring matches…we just go round and round on this forum. You guys seem to miss the point again and again.
What is an art? Art, in its purest form, is an investigation and also an expression of the “self.” Wasn’t it Bruce Lee that said that?
Its not a contest of who can beat up who. Martial competition has its place but it should only serve as a tool…it should be a means and not an end.
You wonder why kung fu guys don’t enter UFC and all that jazz, I think mostly its because most of them don’t care. They got into martial “arts” for other reasons (or eventually did) then just to be a brawler.
Martial arts for them is a vehicle on the road to something else, not a destination.
So I say to you guys that practice for combat sport competition what’s the point? Are you really doing art or is it just a diversion for you?
Because in the end, you just won some stupid trophy that doesn’t mean anything in anyone in the world at large…unless you won some money or something.
The ‘art’ comes from responding the way that is best for you. I think learning a little of everything is crutial to understanding what your oponent may do, but learning all of the options, then seeing what works best for you.
A great example of the ‘art’ aspect is shadowboxing
shadowboxing can be very tiring if your imagining a live oponent reacting in different ways and you are responding to what that person does. It’s very demanding of the creative and imaginative aspects of the mind, and, to me, one of the most difficult things to do
The art side of it is exspressing yourself, respect to yourself and others and it becomes part of your life the more you progress. As said before a lot of people dont study martial arts to become pro fighters most do it for fitness, hoby and enjoyment a lot of ma dosent even spar e.g thi chi it has a lot more meaning than just fighting. Martial arts should teach you not to fight, if you understand its lessons you shouldnt need to prove your self to others
I think, Like art (as in crafts) your martial art is something that can only be improved by removing the bad bits.
Once you hav learned to punch you then spend the rest of you life making it better, by removing all unneccesary movement untill it can not be seen or antisipated.
I think that the term martial art is diffrent for everyone, For me its the persuit for perfection. Not the persuit for points.
I know many ppl will disagree, but I would never call UFC, sumo, Boxing, TKD or Comp Karate a martial art. The martial arts are about pure attack, using everything you have and anything thats around you to stop any attack.
I think its far to say that these things I mentioned above are sports. They are played for Money and the want to prove how good some1 is. When a true martial artist will understand that Most of a fight is luck. We just train the best we can and hope it works in the event that we will never have to use it.
I guess a test would be to see who would still practice martial arts if they were completely cut off from civilization, where there were no people and no training aides. Would people still practice if all of a sudden, there were no external recipients?
I think that if a martial artist was 100% cut off and would never see another human again, there art form would turn in to “park our” or “free running”.
Personaly I feel that I wouldnt train to fight against humans if there were none. I would stiil desire perfection in movement, Whatever disipline I took. I’d prob train in internal healing arts and free running.
20th, I carry my light weight sharp sword and defeat many opponents.
30th, I carry my heavy weight dull sword and still defeat many opponents. The difference is that my skill no longer depending on the sharp edge of my sword and speed is no longer my concern.
40th, I don’t carry any sword, tree branch, grass, flower, wind, cloud could all be my sword.
50th, I no longer challenge anybody because I no longer have “enemy” in my mind (Wu Di).
This is the normal progress of any CMA guy’s life. If you have lived through it then you would truely understand the meaning of CMA - You can do but you don’t have to do.
For me personally for a fighting style to turn into art it has to display perfect movement at the right time. Not in a kata or in a form pre arranged sparring, but when it counts.
Whenever i watch muhhammed ali or any of those great boxers from marvin hagler to marciano, i think this is pure art and i dont think it could get better, the punch is 8cm away from their head and they manage to move their head out of the way , or back or bob and weave. Not only this but they do it consistently all through rounds and rounds of a rigorous fight.
To me it is the perfection of the word art in martial arts.
When you see it its so natural and perfect its like a painter when he just does what he knows how to do or when a musician performs live in front of thousands of people and he just does what he likes to do most.
First off, up until about the 19th century, artisans were craftsmen, who applied a skillset for practical purposes. You apprenticed with an artist, learned the craft, and eventually used that skill to make a living for yourself.
The notion of artist as sensitive individualist doesn’t pop until fairly recently in modern history.
Art, real art, is not always a painting, or a song, or book. Sometimes, it’s a building (Frank Lloyd Wright) that has purpose outside of it’s aesthetic appeal. It is fully functional and contains elements of personal expression that elevates it above the standard.
People complain about modern art, ala abstract expressionism, or the New York school, but without it we wouldn’t have jazzy sports team logos, or patterned sweaters, or Coca Cola cans. Big deal, right? But all those things allow companies and individuals to express their own individualism…so the art becomes a practical tool for the individual to use for their own benefit.
There is plenty of bad art out there. You don’t have to look very far to find it. Just tune your radio to a top 40 station, but listen up, because in 6 months it’ll be replaced by something else. The stuff that sticks around for 20 years has an intrinsic value that elevates it above the Ashlee Simpsons of the world. And for martial arts, that value is practical application.
Now, I’m not much of a competitor, but 99% of these guys DO NOT COMPETE FOR THE TROPHY. Sure, they want it, but not because of the trophy…but because of what the trophy symbolizes—Personal Excellence. They compete because they want to be the best, and winning a trophy (or belt, or medal, or Superbowl ring)just happens to come along with the package.
You think Hemingway wasn’t a competitor? Or Jackson Pollock? Or Van Gogh? Jim Morrison?
The guy painting a picture in his garage doesn’t care about recognition, sure. Just like the guy doing forms in his backyard.
But most of the guys you hear about it, the guys you go to college to study, fought hard, made huge sacrifices (many destroyed themselves in the process) to be recognized as the best in their field.
Is the Nobel Prize for literature “just a trophy”? But can you name the last 5 winners?
MK is right; however, several famous artists were not appreciated until well after their deaths. In their time, their work was not considered aesthetic or practical. How do we, therefore, define what is practical as it relates to art? It can’t be simply accepted as good work within your trade, can it?
Sometimes, it takes a little while for the value to become evident. Sometimes it takes a couple of generations. Sometimes, it never happens at all.
When you try to shake the system up (Van Gogh, for example), at first people scream because change is scary, but eventually, if your ideals have merit, you will find mainstream acceptance if the right momentum is there.
There will always be hold-outs.
Look how long it took for traditionalists to admit they had holes in their ground delivery systems…all the while the Gracies were choking people out all over the place.
Moby **** ruined Melville’s career. But 100 years later it is a classic and taught in every American Lit class on the planet, so I’m forced to concede that the novel has merit even though I think it’s is a crap book and will never read it again.
So, the UFC comes along and says martial artists should put up or shut up. We’ll have a few years of people screaming about it. But as the older generations die off and the newer ones come into their own, eventually you’ll have more acceptance in the TMA world for combat sport venues.
In the words of Agent Smith: “It’s not impossible. It is inevitable.”
Wow, the comments about “if there were no other humans would you still do martial arts” are very thought provoking. I wonder how many MMA/UFC ers still do martial arts into the later years of their lives, after their desire to fight has died out.
This touches on the idea that martial arts are done for personal gain, not to inflict your greatness on others. Kung Fu doesn’t translate to fighting tough guy school. If you don’t do martial arts to fight, why do you do them?
In the beginning my pursuit was to be a skilled fighter. As time progressed and I trained I realized that I don’t get into fights in my every day life. So my motivation for training seemed to have dried up. And yet I still train. And if I am not training for “battle” why do I train in an art that is made for it?
I try not to label it a pursuit of perfection, as there is no perfect art and no perfect artist. Perfection can only be achieved in sciences, where facts can be pinned down. For example, in all martial arts there different methods for kicking. Some prefer to stand flat footed, some prefer to get up on the ball of your foot. Is one method more right than another? They each justify their reason and they are different. If you could say conclusively and prove that one method was right all of the time you would be moving into a more scientific approach.
Right. It’s the pursuit of excellence. Excellence in the ring. Excellence in your form. These are just two paths with the same goal in mind–personal excellence in a chosen field.
Winning a forms competition at the highest levels takes years of hard work, sacrifice, and dedication.
Winning a championship belt takes years of hard work, sacrifice, and and dedication.
There are many ways up the mountain. Not everyone takes the same path.
I’m not talking about “artisans” I’m talking about “artists.” I see a difference there.“Artisan” really refers to someone with a specific skill or craft. In fact I’ll even concede that “art” as defined in websters dictionary refers to a “skill or craft.” But why the expression martial “artist” and not martial “artisan?”
I’m not just talking about “art” on a physical level. I’m talking about “art” on the whole self level ie body, mind and soul. When you do “art” you are expressing your whole self. Or it can be an investigation into the whole “self.” I dont’ see it as only what is material manifest but also the mental and spiritual levels. So when we do martial “art” are we just talking about the material “skill or craft” component or are we talking about the whole deal?
Like some forms of art, it has dual functionality to it as well, such as martiality.
The product is your transformation acquired through the process of practicing the art.
Stretch your head a little, it’s not that far a reach. Dunno why the snide remarks about competitive fighters are in there. That’s there form of thang.
All painters do not practice the same genre, all musicians do not play the same song or style of music and so on.
In the highest levels, it’s both. Jackson Pollock’s work is emotionally visceral and technically groundbreaking (for the time). Same with Hemingway’s style (in the beginning). But, someone without art training looks at Pollock and says “my kid can do that!”
So what separates Pollock from grade school scribbling? I would say Intent.
Sure, you can argue intentional fallacy until the cows come home. But great arists show their intent in their work. It’s what separates them from the pack. Otherwise, you would study only significant movements and not individual artists.
That’s why the emphasis on fighting style is a fallacy. The style is not the art. The person executing the style creates the art, if they are any good. Not everyone who walks through forms or wears a Gi is a martial artist, just like not everyone who paints a tree outside their window is an artist.
Why then are people criticized if their form doesn’t look like anothers. Several people learn the same form, but they don’t all “play” it the same way. Inevitably, the ones that do play it similarly will critique the other when, arguably, the person who is the most uniqe has the most individual take on the form to suit that persons interpretation and intest while the others that look alike may be guilty of mere imitation.
