# Can Martial Arts be Beautiful?



## Jenna (Apr 16, 2012)

Do you think MA practice can be beautiful?  Are there examples of practice or practitioners in your own MA that you would regard as demonstrating beautiful practice?

I might class beauty in MA practice as a kind of effortless physical fluency and efficiency.  Does that sound congruent do you think?  I think there is beauty regardless of the discipline.  I wonder do you agree?

















I could be off mark though.  Can I ask, do you think beauty and functionality are mutually exclusive concepts in MA?  Or, no MA, because of its potential to damage can ever be regarded as beautiful.  Is this true do you think?  Are there other reasons why the practice of MA cannot be regarded as beautiful?

I am grateful to have all your opinions.  Thank you.


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Apr 16, 2012)

MA is beautiful. Watching practitioners of Bagua for example. They way they move is incredible. Or even in my style, watching my friend who is a 3rd degree perform some of his earlier forms, its simply amazing. the fluidity is outstanding.

one of the things i find "beautiful" about the MA's is that its amazing to watch, especially when it is someone that has a lot of skill, but also because of how deadly and destructive it could be. Its like a tiger. they are beautiful and majestic animals but they are also 800lbs of pure power.

B


----------



## oftheherd1 (Apr 16, 2012)

I don't know if he is still doing it, but at one time, Jhoon Goo Rhee promoted kata that were specifically designed for beautiful flowing movements, set to classical music.

But I think you are referring to a beauty from efficient movements performed in a flawless manner?  Yes, I think there can be beauty in that.  It may not be a whole kata, but a single technique, or even a particular move in a kata.


----------



## lklawson (Apr 16, 2012)

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## chrispillertkd (Apr 16, 2012)

lklawson said:


> Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk




Tell that to your wife and then compliment her on her looks.

It's not so much that beauty is subjective ("in the eye of the beholder") so much as it is a matter of being able to recognize it when it's present. Beauty, like other things, can be difficult to recognize, let alone explain, for many people. And there are times when, even when you do recognize beauty is present you don't necessarily appreciate it. For example, I recognize that the Mona Lisa is a beautiful painting, but I don't really appreciate it as much as I do other works of art that show less ability and less beauty.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 16, 2012)

Can Martial Arts be Beautiful?   Speaking as one who thinks Yuzo Mifune is awsome to watch and I saw Marvin Hagler ring side  at a demo...Yes

Young Chen Xiaowang






Older Chen Xiaowang Applications






Tung Hu Ling Push Hands - Yang Style


----------



## Gnarlie (Apr 16, 2012)

I went to a TKD tournament once where they had super slow mo HD instant replays on a big screen at the back of the room.  It looked awesome, but turned out to be pretty dangerous, as after every good point the competitors would stop to admire their handiwork on the screen.  This guy's form is not brilliant, but it kind of demonstrates what I mean, there is a grace in TKD that I can really appreciate:


----------



## yak sao (Apr 16, 2012)

Xue, I must say I'm a little surprised and disappointed.
I thought you would use this as an opportunity to show a Michelle Yeoh pic

Since you dropped the ball....


----------



## yak sao (Apr 16, 2012)

and of course this......


----------



## yak sao (Apr 16, 2012)

not an action shot, but deserves honorable mention


----------



## chinto (Apr 16, 2012)

yes it can, so can many weapons, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  I think martial arts are lovely, but also done properly deadly efficient defense.


----------



## Jenna (Apr 16, 2012)

KempoGuy06 said:


> MA is beautiful. Watching practitioners of Bagua for example. They way they move is incredible. Or even in my style, watching my friend who is a 3rd degree perform some of his earlier forms, its simply amazing. the fluidity is outstanding.
> 
> one of the things i find "beautiful" about the MA's is that its amazing to watch, especially when it is someone that has a lot of skill, but also because of how deadly and destructive it could be. Its like a tiger. they are beautiful and majestic animals but they are also 800lbs of pure power.
> 
> B



Yes B, this is what I am thinking also.  Beauty is in the observation of the adept.  It would be imprudent to regard our own expertise as beautiful yet perhaps to others it might be - as it is with you observing your pal practicing forms.  

I have at the back of my mind issue with classifying something as beautiful that has such a measure of destruction inbuilt.  I like your tiger example.  The tiger is undoubtedly awe inspiring when it hunts and its precision and powerful stealth are technically unsurpassed.  I think a tiger on the hunt yes possesses an awesome beauty.  Yet the act of the kill is functional (to feed).  The actual act is not beautiful?  Would you agree?  Does this make sense?  I am not sure how to equate what I am saying to the tiger analogy, though I like it very, very much, thank you 




oftheherd1 said:


> I don't know if he is still doing it, but at one time, Jhoon Goo Rhee promoted kata that were specifically designed for beautiful flowing movements, set to classical music.
> 
> But I think you are referring to a beauty from efficient movements performed in a flawless manner? Yes, I think there can be beauty in that. It may not be a whole kata, but a single technique, or even a particular move in a kata.


Thank you for the Jhoon Goo Rhee example.  I wish it were possible to see this also.  And I think yes kata are designed I think to teach many things such as fluidity, balance and stance and so these are almost always examples of what is good to look at, I agree entirely.  I think though even in free randori there is potential for a beautiful match when one or both practitioners can utilise their kata and their technique to effortlessly control the other.  Do you think that is right?  Or is sparring by two adept practitioners purely functional and got nothing to do with beauty?  Thank you for your thoughts 




lklawson said:


> Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


Yes Kirk, I think that is true.  I wonder along your martial journey has any practice struck you as being a beautiful thing?  Can efficient function beget beauty in MA do you think?




chrispillertkd said:


> Tell that to your wife and then compliment her on her looks.
> 
> It's not so much that beauty is subjective ("in the eye of the beholder") so much as it is a matter of being able to recognize it when it's present. Beauty, like other things, can be difficult to recognize, let alone explain, for many people. And there are times when, even when you do recognize beauty is present you don't necessarily appreciate it. For example, I recognize that the Mona Lisa is a beautiful painting, but I don't really appreciate it as much as I do other works of art that show less ability and less beauty.
> 
> ...


I like this analogy Chris, thank you.  I wonder though, if beauty cannot be recognised instantly then is it beauty at all do you think?  Does true beauty require a measure of consensus?  And is Mona Lisa a beautiful painting of a woman or a painting of a beautiful woman?  And most importantly, is beautiful a word ever to be indexed against martial art?   Thank you for your thoughts  




Xue Sheng said:


> Can Martial Arts be Beautiful? Speaking as one who thinks Yuzo Mifune is awsome to watch and I saw Marvin Hagler ring side at a demo...Yes



X_S thank you for your thoughts and for posting these excellent visuals.  I cannot deny as a layperson that these represent something truly beautiful as I see it.  Can I ask please, are you just lucky to be student of a beautiful discipline or is it not by chance that there is beauty in these forms?  I wonder does all ultimate technical efficiency lead to a work of beauty?  What do you think?  Thank you again, I am grateful 




Gnarlie said:


> I went to a TKD tournament once where they had super slow mo HD instant replays on a big screen at the back of the room. It looked awesome, but turned out to be pretty dangerous, as after every good point the competitors would stop to admire their handiwork on the screen. This guy's form is not brilliant, but it kind of demonstrates what I mean, there is a grace in TKD that I can really appreciate:


Dear Gnarlie, grace is an excellent choice of word, thank you.  The slo-mo totally adds to that sense of physical poetry.  I like that very much.  Can I ask please, do you think that being graceful in this way precludes being functional?  I mean functional as in damage-causing?  If your practice is beautiful is it inclined not to be regarded as functional?  Thank you again 




yak sao said:


> Xue, I must say I'm a little surprised and disappointed.
> I thought you would use this as an opportunity to show a Michelle Yeoh pic
> 
> Since you dropped the ball....


Bah.. pretty pictures   I will let you away with it so long as you show me some proper beautiful MA and not just beautiful people 




chinto said:


> yes it can, so can many weapons, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I think martial arts are lovely, but also done properly deadly efficient defense.


Thank you for this!  I agree that weapons practice is some of the most fluid and obviously beautiful practice.  You have said that the arts are attractive and BUT ALSO can be deadly efficient.  I wonder is there any truth in an idea that beautiful practice will always LEAD to deadly efficiency?  What do you think?  Thank you again, I am grateful.


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Apr 16, 2012)

Jenna said:


> Yes B, this is what I am thinking also.  Beauty is in the observation of the adept.  It would be imprudent to regard our own expertise as beautiful yet perhaps to others it might be - as it is with you observing your pal practicing forms.
> 
> I have at the back of my mind issue with classifying something as beautiful that has such a measure of destruction inbuilt.  I like your tiger example.  The tiger is undoubtedly awe inspiring when it hunts and its precision and powerful stealth are technically unsurpassed.  I think a tiger on the hunt yes possesses an awesome beauty.  Yet the act of the kill is functional (to feed).  The actual act is not beautiful?  Would you agree?  Does this make sense?  I am not sure how to equate what I am saying to the tiger analogy, though I like it very, very much, thank you



i understand. the movements of the tiger are beauty but the act of it killing its prey are not. 

the same is with MA's. What we do, what we have learned has a certain beauty to it, but to see it used on a live opponent who is trying to harm us is not. 

I believe this is why we call it Martial Arts.

B


----------



## yak sao (Apr 16, 2012)

Wing Tsun is not known for being asthetically pleasing, but here are some superb examples of the flow of chi sau. To a wing tsun nerd like me, I think it's fantastic and beautiful to watch






whoops...wrong link...here it is

http://youtu.be/qaP1X-lEtgc

http://youtu.be/6tn4IiZbgGc


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 16, 2012)

yak sao said:


> Xue, I must say I'm a little surprised and disappointed.
> I thought you would use this as an opportunity to show a Michelle Yeoh pic
> 
> Since you dropped the ball....



Oh mercy no...I did not drop the ball...someone has to mention her and then I start posting *Michelle Yeoh* pictures...and you have just let the genie out of the bottle BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Did someone mentiong Michelle Yeoh :EG:


















[


----------



## lklawson (Apr 16, 2012)

chrispillertkd said:


> Tell that to your wife and then compliment her on her looks.


Done that.  She seems OK with it coming from me.



> It's not so much that beauty is subjective ("in the eye of the beholder") so much as it is a matter of being able to recognize it when it's present.


Sorry, but you and I are going to have to disagree here.  "Beauty" is very subjective and heavily influenced by culture.  Chinese bound feet is beautiful?  She can't even walk!  Myan rope & hook pierced genitals?  Ouch.

Sorry, but beauty IS subjective.  Really.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## RobinTKD (Apr 16, 2012)

I think martial arts can be beautiful when used against an opponent, Judo can look beautiful when a throw is administered perfectly, plus i find some of the techniques used here beautiful.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 16, 2012)

Jenna said:


> X_S thank you for your thoughts and for posting these excellent visuals.  I cannot deny as a layperson that these represent something truly beautiful as I see it.  Can I ask please, are you just lucky to be student of a beautiful discipline or is it not by chance that there is beauty in these forms?  I wonder does all ultimate technical efficiency lead to a work of beauty?  What do you think?  Thank you again, I am grateful



I have studied Yang style Taijiquan (Tung lineage) for 17 years and I have also learned Chen Laojia Yilu and silk reeling.


----------



## CoreyMinchin (Apr 16, 2012)

Yeah, you know when you see these staged Kung-Fu fights and all their moves are smooth, flowing and perfecty-timed (aright, if it's staged, maybe it doesn't count)?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 16, 2012)

CoreyMinchin said:


> Yeah, you know when you see these staged Kung-Fu fights and all their moves are smooth, flowing and perfecty-timed (aright, if it's staged, maybe it doesn't count)?



My first sifu had a video of two older gentleman (75 and 83) doing tuishou. One was Chen style the other Wu style, it was not staged and it was a thing of beauty.

There are also old videos out there of Morihei Ueshiba that are not staged and they are amazing


----------



## Gnarlie (Apr 16, 2012)

Jenna said:


> Dear Gnarlie, grace is an excellent choice of word, thank you.  The slo-mo totally adds to that sense of physical poetry.  I like that very much.  Can I ask please, do you think that being graceful in this way precludes being functional?  I mean functional as in damage-causing?  If your practice is beautiful is it inclined not to be regarded as functional?  Thank you again



Welcome 

I would say grace does not necessarily preclude functionality.  Sometimes yes, sometimes no.  TKD is a mix of linear and circular motions - naturally the shortest and therefore quickest way to a target is in a straight line.  But some of the circular techniques sacrifice a little time for the sake of building power, and are certainly capable of causing devastating amounts of damage when applied to a stationary target.  It comes down to whether you can get them to a human target before it moves or is covered.

I think the graceful techniques of TKD are part of the reason why it is viewed by some as less than functional.  In fact, I'd go as far as to say that when the techniques are used against a target successfully, they stop looking so pretty.  A huge graceful looping kick stops rather abruptly when it meets a target.

I think that these graceful looping techniques combined with a superior sense of distance, a little deception, and the right targets, can be extremely functional.  Like anything worth having, it's a LOT of practice.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Apr 16, 2012)

lklawson said:


> Done that. She seems OK with it coming from me.



lol Sure she is  Hope you aren't a sound sleeper!




> Sorry, but you and I are going to have to disagree here. "Beauty" is very subjective and heavily influenced by culture. Chinese bound feet is beautiful? She can't even walk! Myan rope & hook pierced genitals? Ouch.



Just like some people can not apprehend beauty when it is present so can they think that the grotesque is attractive. Case in point, I knew many people in art class in high school who were very skillful when it came to drawing but spent most of their time doing adolescent homages to the latest heavy metal album covers. Were they good artists? Sure, to some extent. Did they produce works of beauty? No. 



> Sorry, but beauty IS subjective. Really.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Nah, it's an objective characteristic which must be perceived by a subject. That's why people think it's a subjective value. If it really was there would be no discussions about why things are beautiful in the first place. One person would just say, "I like that" and another person would say, "That's nice, I don't." But we don't do that. I've often found, in fact, that many times people who say they believe that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" are the most vociferous when it comes to what they can only assert is their baseless opinion on what is or is not beautiful. (I'm not saying you're doing this, I'm just making an observation.)

Anyway, if beauty wasn't objective then I have to wonder what all those Art Appreciation classes, books on artistsic master pieces, etc. are all about. They should all be one sentence long: "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." But they go on rather at length, usually. In fact, aesthetics is quite an interesting field of philosophy. Ultimately, if a thing lacks integrity (or completeness, "perfectio"), right proportion or harmony ("debita proportio sive consonantia"), and brilliance or brightness ("claritas") it cannot be said to be beautiful in itself. You could say that various characteristics of that thing were beautiful if they were examined in themselves and possessed those characteristics, of course, but if the thing taken as a whole didn't possess them, then no it wouldn't be beautiful.

Individuals can obviously fail to recognize these characteristics in a thing, just as cultures can develop which either help or hinder at perceiving them (because cultures develop from people, after all). But you can't say that beauty qua beauty varies over cultures any more than you could say that logic does. (And yes I know people who would make that argument, thereby cutting the tree branch that they sit on out from under them  ).

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Rich Parsons (Apr 16, 2012)

Jenna said:


> Do you think MA practice can be beautiful?  Are there examples of practice or practitioners in your own MA that you would regard as demonstrating beautiful practice?
> 
> I might class beauty in MA practice as a kind of effortless physical fluency and efficiency.  Does that sound congruent do you think?  I think there is beauty regardless of the discipline.  I wonder do you agree?
> 
> ...



Yes, it can be beautiful. 

Moving as you said gracefully, flowing from one technique to another. 

:~)


----------



## elder999 (Apr 16, 2012)

If yer not doing it for the beauty, there's something wrong.....


----------



## lklawson (Apr 16, 2012)

chrispillertkd said:


> lol Sure she is  Hope you aren't a sound sleeper!


I typically go to sleep before her.  I've woken up every day for many years now.




> Just like some people can not apprehend beauty when it is present so can they think that the grotesque is attractive. Case in point, I knew many people in art class in high school who were very skillful when it came to drawing but spent most of their time doing adolescent homages to the latest heavy metal album covers. Were they good artists? Sure, to some extent. Did they produce works of beauty? No.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I know you really, really want to believe that.  But the fact that every unique culture has its own opinion of what beauty is and that they seldom match with what we think it is, being largely based in an evolution of Greek sensibilities, simply proves my point.  Beauty is subjective, at least to the culture that spawns the art.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Apr 16, 2012)

elder999 said:


> If yer not doing it for the beauty, there's something wrong.....


Maybe your doing it for fun.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## elder999 (Apr 16, 2012)

lklawson said:


> Maybe your doing it for fun.



Beauty/fun all the same-same. :asian:


----------



## chrispillertkd (Apr 16, 2012)

lklawson said:


> I know you really, really want to believe that. But the fact that every unique culture has its own opinion of what beauty is and that they seldom match with what we think it is, being largely based in an evolution of Greek sensibilities, simply proves my point. Beauty is subjective, at least to the culture that spawns the art.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Actually, no I used to hold pretty much the exact same position you do. Then I actually studied the topic and realized it wasn't correct.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## lklawson (Apr 16, 2012)

chrispillertkd said:


> Actually, no I used to hold pretty much the exact same position you do. Then I actually studied the topic and realized it wasn't correct.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris


Perhaps you can walk me through your study/reasoning, 'cuz all the evidence I see is landing on the opposite side.  I mean, I see Giraffe Women and I think they're grotesque.  I see Lip Disks and I think they're grotesque.  If there's a Universal Beauty, I'm not following.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Buka (Apr 16, 2012)

Ever see when one of your students first "get's it"? That moment in time when they go from a kid in a class to an almost "martial artist." It's so beautiful. No other way to describe it. How about when so and so threw that jump/360 whatever-it-was and hit big Mike across the face so loud it sounded like beef slapping concrete? Beautiful, a sight (and sound) to behold. And the look on big Mike's face? Now, that was_ true_ beauty. 

Remember the time Joey, no, not him, the other one, was sick and all the other students took turns helping him get through it all. Sweet beauty, that's what that was, brought a tear to your eye. Or how about the time Veronica slipped that left hook and positively floored that blond guy with an overhand right? It will always be remembered when the subject of beautiful punches comes up, I mean, how could it not? What about the Kata Sensei was doing before class on the day before Thanksgiving? Do you remember the guillotine Omar slapped on what's-his-face when what's-his-face tried a single leg? 

Remember when John got promoted? When you swept Jack off his feet so hard he farted? When you finally got a gi you _loved_? That time your family watched you work out and you actually felt proud? The first time you ever beat that person you could never beat before? The first time your instructor actually remembered your name?

Martial Arts beautiful? *Nah!*


----------



## Cyriacus (Apr 16, 2012)

Alrighty.

First, to the weird debate above; My View on it more or less reflects lklawson's. There, now I wont have to actually put thought or effort into that part.

Second, it depends. Alot of things that people consider to be beautiful in terms of Martial Arts, I see as just being overcomplicated or weird. I am not easily impressed, and complexity/difficulty/prowess does not make it look any better to Me.
Much in the same way, alot of clothing that most 15-25 year olds in this part of the Country wear, to Me, looks stupid and impractical.
Much in the same way, Im not impressed when People go sliding around all graceful-like. Forgive Me for not being susceptible to that kind of stuff, but Im really just not interested, and such displays dont hold My interest for any longer than the time it takes to see that thats what Theyre doing.

Theres no Global Spectrum upon which to base Beauty.
Otherwise, We should all get with the times and dress like this:




Modern Day. Modern Era. Stick through the Nose and all. Why not? Beauty is a globally measured and recognised thing. So I say again: If You believe that, get with the times, and get a stick through the nose, a feather on the head, and buy yourself a nice skirt.
Or is there perhaps a chance one might thenby consider that low and behold, not all Cultures, or Humans, or Civilizations, are the same. In necessarily any way.


----------



## rframe (Apr 16, 2012)

Jenna said:


> Do you think MA practice can be beautiful?



Maybe, incidentally, the way that I think a P51 Mustang or F/A-18 Hornet are beautiful.  They are machines designed for death and destruction, and its somewhat sick to find beauty in that, yet I appreciate their design and have a deep level of respect in their capabilities such that "beauty" is a word sometimes used to not-so-accurately-express the emotion they evoke.  Such it is with the admiration of some martial artist's fluid movements and capabilities.  Then there is also a point where what one practices really becomes a dance and stops being the real practice of combat designed to break human beings... there's a point where purpose changes meaning and meaning affects emotion.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Apr 17, 2012)

lklawson said:


> Perhaps you can walk me through your study/reasoning, 'cuz all the evidence I see is landing on the opposite side. I mean, I see Giraffe Women and I think they're grotesque. I see Lip Disks and I think they're grotesque. If there's a Universal Beauty, I'm not following.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Sure. First, let's talk about what we mean when we say "beauty." What's the definition of beauty? In other words, what does it mean to say "that is beautiful"?

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Cyriacus (Apr 17, 2012)

chrispillertkd said:


> Sure. First, let's talk about what we mean when we say "beauty." What's the definition of beauty? In other words, what does it mean to say "that is beautiful"?
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris



*Slides in*

[h=2]beau·ty[/h]&#8194; &#8194;[byoo-tee]  Show IPA
*noun, **plural **beau·ties.**1.*the quality present in a thing or person that gives intensepleasure or deep satisfaction to the mind, whether arisingfrom sensory manifestations (as shape, color, sound, etc.), ameaningful design or pattern, or something else (as apersonality in which high spiritual qualities are manifest).

*2.*a beautiful  person, especially a woman.

*3.*a beautiful  thing, as a work of art or a building.

*4.*Often, *beauties. *something that is beautiful  in nature or insome natural or artificial environment.

*5.*an individually pleasing or beautiful  quality; grace; charm: _avivid blue area that is the one real beauty of the painting.

*Swiftly leaves*_


​


----------



## yak sao (Apr 17, 2012)

Cyriacus said:


> *Slides in*
> 
> *beau·ty*
> 
> ...




who was that masked man?


----------



## chrispillertkd (Apr 17, 2012)

The dictionary is a good place to start, I suppose, though my question was really directed towards Kirk since he seems to take exception at the idea of beauty as an objective quality.



Cyriacus said:


> *Slides in*
> 
> *beau·ty*
> 
> ...




So, it's a quality present in a thing that causes an effect when it is recognized.

*



			2.
		
Click to expand...

*


> a beautiful person, especially a woman.




A person who has the objective attribute in question.

*



			3.
		
Click to expand...

*


> a beautiful thing, as a work of art or a building.





> *4.*Often, *beauties. *something that is beautiful in nature or insome natural or artificial environment.
> 
> *5.*an individually pleasing or beautiful quality; grace; charm: _avivid blue area that is the one real beauty of the painting._


_

_Basically, as I pointed out previously, beauty is a quality that causes a reaction of delight (for want of a better term) in a person when they apprehend that quality in another person or object. It is, therefore, objective. If it was subjective - that is residing in the subject - then it couldn't be a quality such as grace or charm that was pleasing.

People can disagree on, or even be wrong about, whether such a quality exists in a particular person or thing. (Indeed, disagreement between parties doesn't preclude knowledge about the subject at hand.) But that doesn't mean beauty itself is subjective, that is, it somehow resides in the person doing the apprehending rather than the thing that is apprehended or depends on their reaction to the thing being viewed.

Pax,

Chris​


----------



## oftheherd1 (Apr 17, 2012)

elder999 said:


> If yer not doing it for the beauty, there's something wrong.....



I can appreciate wanting to do beautiful things.  But as I practice Hapkido, it isn't for beauty.  That would not be a part of it for us.  That doesn't mean we can't see beauty in some techniques; from efficiency, simplicity, fluidity, what ever.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Apr 17, 2012)

Don't know what the deal is with the quoting in my above post. I edited it twice and each time the edits didn't go through for some reason.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Jenna (Apr 17, 2012)

KempoGuy06 said:


> i understand. the movements of the tiger are beauty but the act of it killing its prey are not.
> 
> the same is with MA's. What we do, what we have learned has a certain beauty to it, but to see it used on a live opponent who is trying to harm us is not.
> 
> ...


Do you think that the context decides how beautiful a practice is?  I am almost excluding MA when called upon in anger, I mean though can sparring or tournament fighting never demonstrate that beauty?



yak sao said:


> Wing Tsun is not known for being asthetically pleasing, but here are some superb examples of the flow of chi sau. To a wing tsun nerd like me, I think it's fantastic and beautiful to watch
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That is mesmerising I agree (the chi sau I mean lol).  Thank you for posting this up.  I do not think you need be a MA nerd to appreciate the fluency in that practice.  Again, thank you.




RobinTKD said:


> I think martial arts can be beautiful when used against an opponent, Judo can look beautiful when a throw is administered perfectly, plus i find some of the techniques used here beautiful.


I think that is true yes.  I think the clip you posted demonstrates that technical proficiency naturally leads to something beautiful.  Would you agree?  If sloppy technique is ugly then, is there a sense that we should be aiming for a practice that IS beautiful do you think?  Thank you very much.




Xue Sheng said:


> I have studied Yang style Taijiquan (Tung lineage) for 17 years and I have also learned Chen Laojia Yilu and silk reeling.


The style itself lends itself to a practice that would demonstrate what most of us I think regard as beautiful.  I wonder though, is there ugly practice also in your style?  I wonder is it a misonception that the beauty in Taijiquan is inherent in the forms when the reality is that the beauty is in the flow and skill of the practitioner do you think?  Thank you again 




CoreyMinchin said:


> Yeah, you know when you see these staged Kung-Fu fights and all their moves are smooth, flowing and perfecty-timed (aright, if it's staged, maybe it doesn't count)?


I think it is staged with the express purpose of being attractive, no?  I think to derive beauty from "normal" practice stems from the ability of the practitioner to knit it all together.  I do not know if that is correct.  Have you any favourite examples of the staged KF you are referring to?  Thank you for your thoughts 




Gnarlie said:


> Welcome
> 
> I would say grace does not necessarily preclude functionality. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. TKD is a mix of linear and circular motions - naturally the shortest and therefore quickest way to a target is in a straight line. But some of the circular techniques sacrifice a little time for the sake of building power, and are certainly capable of causing devastating amounts of damage when applied to a stationary target. It comes down to whether you can get them to a human target before it moves or is covered.
> 
> ...


I like the points you are making.  I think I have often an ambivalence between something which I know is damaging and at the same time which is technically flawless and has been led up to by a wonderfully interconnected flow of movements.  You mention that movement ceases to be pretty when it connects with a target.  Yes, this is what I mean.  I think though that there is also beauty in hard atemi or even a KO, however it requires a certain objectivity -and perhaps detachment- on our part as observer about what we have witnessed otherwise we appear to ourselves as callous.  I do not know if that sounds right?  I appreciate your contribution.  Thank you.




chrispillertkd said:


> Anyway, if beauty wasn't objective then I have to wonder what all those Art Appreciation classes, books on artistsic master pieces, etc. are all about. They should all be one sentence long: "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." But they go on rather at length, usually. In fact, aesthetics is quite an interesting field of philosophy. Ultimately, if a thing lacks integrity (or completeness, "perfectio"), right proportion or harmony ("debita proportio sive consonantia"), and brilliance or brightness ("claritas") it cannot be said to be beautiful in itself. You could say that various characteristics of that thing were beautiful if they were examined in themselves and possessed those characteristics, of course, but if the thing taken as a whole didn't possess them, then no it wouldn't be beautiful.


I think you are making wholly sentient points and but I wonder is the beauty in a renowned painting a beauty derived through a technical flow and fluency in the medium demonstrated by the artist?  In which case, the concensus is over that proficiency and not over the image itself?  Perhaps not  I welcome your views.




Rich Parsons said:


> Yes, it can be beautiful.
> 
> Moving as you said gracefully, flowing from one technique to another.
> 
> :~)


Rich, does this beauty always apply where there is flow and grace?  Are there situations where flow and grace and technical flawlessness are amply displayed and yet the practice is ugly?  Thank you for your thoughts 




elder999 said:


> If yer not doing it for the beauty, there's something wrong.....


These are excellent clips! What was it about the practices of Bruce Lee in particular that generate such a concensus opinion of having witnessed something beautiful?  Do you think his practice was always such even before he gained such a reputation of awe?  Are we easily persuaded to beauty if everyone says a thing is beautiful?  I think it is difficult with Bruce and because most of what we have is to a degree choreographed.  I like watching his audition clips   Thank you for your thoughts.  I am grateful to you 




lklawson said:


> I typically go to sleep before her. I've woken up every day for many years now.
> 
> 
> I know you really, really want to believe that. But the fact that every unique culture has its own opinion of what beauty is and that they seldom match with what we think it is, being largely based in an evolution of Greek sensibilities, simply proves my point. Beauty is subjective, at least to the culture that spawns the art.
> ...


Can there be beauty independent of the object or practice?  I mean can beauty exist as a notion contained in the technical proficiency of the artist?  Or must the two always go together?  And is this merely evidence for the subjectivity of beauty?  





Buka said:


> Ever see when one of your students first "get's it"? That moment in time when they go from a kid in a class to an almost "martial artist." It's so beautiful. No other way to describe it. How about when so and so threw that jump/360 whatever-it-was and hit big Mike across the face so loud it sounded like beef slapping concrete? Beautiful, a sight (and sound) to behold. And the look on big Mike's face? Now, that was true beauty.
> 
> Remember the time Joey, no, not him, the other one, was sick and all the other students took turns helping him get through it all. Sweet beauty, that's what that was, brought a tear to your eye. Or how about the time Veronica slipped that left hook and positively floored that blond guy with an overhand right? It will always be remembered when the subject of beautiful punches comes up, I mean, how could it not? What about the Kata Sensei was doing before class on the day before Thanksgiving? Do you remember the guillotine Omar slapped on what's-his-face when what's-his-face tried a single leg?
> 
> ...


Wow, this is a beautiful post dear Buka.  Thank you   What can I say.  Except the blonde guy with the overhand right left himself totally open to Veronica.  Perhaps it is a beautiful thing to see that guy cover properly from hereon.  ANd while we are waiting for his next match we can admire his beautifully dislocated jaw   j/k.  I think you are entirely correct, the beauty in MA extends beyond the techniques into the whole environment in which those techniques are practiced.  Thank you for making these points and for doing so with such poetry yourself.  I am grateful.






Cyriacus said:


> Second, it depends. Alot of things that people consider to be beautiful in terms of Martial Arts, I see as just being overcomplicated or weird. I am not easily impressed, and complexity/difficulty/prowess does not make it look any better to Me.


Thank you for your thoughts.  And so what - if anything - would you in your opinion consider as beautiful MA practice?  Thank you 





rframe said:


> Maybe, incidentally, the way that I think a P51 Mustang or F/A-18 Hornet are beautiful. They are machines designed for death and destruction, and its somewhat sick to find beauty in that, yet I appreciate their design and have a deep level of respect in their capabilities such that "beauty" is a word sometimes used to not-so-accurately-express the emotion they evoke. Such it is with the admiration of some martial artist's fluid movements and capabilities. Then there is also a point where what one practices really becomes a dance and stops being the real practice of combat designed to break human beings... there's a point where purpose changes meaning and meaning affects emotion.


I think that is a good example and both examples I entirely concur are beautiful pieces of engineering.  So are you saying there is only beauty in these machines when they are stationary?  In the case of the Hornet, it is only beautiful when it is not engaged in the pursuit for which it was designed?  Similarly with MA, do you think there is no true fighting practice that is also beautiful?  I appreciate that it is a subjective thing and but I like a good fight.  I can see technical ability, fluidity, fluency with form and all of which I think when in synchronisation epitomise fighting beauty.  What do you think?  Thank you for your thoughts.


----------



## lklawson (Apr 17, 2012)

chrispillertkd said:


> Sure. First, let's talk about what we mean when we say "beauty." What's the definition of beauty? In other words, what does it mean to say "that is beautiful"?


And that is the crux of the problem.  I'm contending that "beauty" is pretty much anything which, when viewed, elicits the emotion of pleasure or happiness.  If you want to try to make it something more substantial than that and then link it to a universal, non-objective, truth, please go right ahead.  You said that your study of the subject has lead you to believe that.  I'm not dismissing your study, I'm just asking to see it.  I might change my mind and agree with you.

But I certainly won't unless you can present something more substantial than what appears to be "my definition of beauty is different."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Apr 17, 2012)

chrispillertkd said:


> Basically, as I pointed out previously, beauty is a quality that causes a reaction of delight (for want of a better term) in a person when they apprehend that quality in another person or object. It is, therefore, objective. If it was subjective - that is residing in the subject - then it couldn't be a quality such as grace or charm that was pleasing.


Nope.  It is subjective because that quality which causes the reaction of delight is potentially different for every viewer and frequently strongly influenced or even determined by "nurture."

Just because the "quality" continues to reside within that object doesn't mean "beauty" is objective but rather that the specific quality is objective.  Beauty is the the subjective reaction of the individual to that quality.



> People can disagree on, or even be wrong about, whether such a quality exists in a particular person or thing. (Indeed, disagreement between parties doesn't preclude knowledge about the subject at hand.) But that doesn't mean beauty itself is subjective, that is, it somehow resides in the person doing the apprehending rather than the thing that is apprehended or depends on their reaction to the thing being viewed.


Actually, yes it does. That's why they can honestly disagree.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## chrispillertkd (Apr 17, 2012)

lklawson said:


> And that is the crux of the problem. I'm contending that "beauty" is pretty much anything which, when viewed, elicits the emotion of pleasure or happiness.



Which is why beauty is _objective_. It resides in the _object_ that you preceives and elicits a particular response from the person who apprehends it. 



> If you want to try to make it something more substantial than that and then link it to a universal, non-objective, truth, please go right ahead. You said that your study of the subject has lead you to believe that. I'm not dismissing your study, I'm just asking to see it. I might change my mind and agree with you.



I can't even procede if you don't agree that a characteristic in an object means something is objective. But do you see that? If not then the rest of the discussion is for not.



> But I certainly won't unless you can present something more substantial than what appears to be "my definition of beauty is different."



It's not the definition of beauty that differs so far. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd (Apr 17, 2012)

lklawson said:


> Nope. It is subjective because that quality which causes the reaction of delight is potentially different for every viewer and frequently strongly influenced or even determined by "nurture."



The apprehension of beauty is done by perceiving the characteristic in another object or person. It is, therefore, objective. It's only subjective in the sense that it's quite possible that the subject (the person viewing the beautiful object) doesn't recognize the beauty in the first place. 



> Just because the "quality" continues to reside within that object doesn't mean "beauty" is objective but rather that the specific quality is objective.



Since beauty is the quality of the object being apprehended this is exactly what it means. Beauty is an objective quality. 



> Beauty is the the subjective reaction of the individual to that quality.



Here's the difference. You're defining beauty to mean a _reaction_ someone feels. Which is, as far as I can tell, quite the opposite of what people generally mean by the term. You call a woman beautiful. You don't say you have a beautiful reaction to her. She is beautiful, you have a reaction of delight (or love, or what have you). But _you_ don't have a beautiful reaction. You react to her beauty.



> Actually, yes it does. That's why they can honestly disagree.



I'm not sure what you're referring to here. I mentioned disagreement not preclusing knowledge as well as beauty residing (or not ersiding) in the subject. I'm not really sure which of those things you refer to here (people disagreeing precluding knowledge or that disagreement meaning beauty is really somehow subjective).

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 17, 2012)

Jenna said:


> The style itself lends itself to a practice that would demonstrate what most of us I think regard as beautiful.  I wonder though, is there ugly practice also in your style?  I wonder is it a misonception that the beauty in Taijiquan is inherent in the forms when the reality is that the beauty is in the flow and skill of the practitioner do you think?  Thank you again
> .



The forms are pretty to watch and tuishou (push hands) can be beautiful as well in practice. However in application not so much, there is not a lot of beauty in a strike to teh head or a qinna lock to the viewer and in most cases to the one the lock is applied to. However when my taiji sifu locks me it is amazing. I never know it is coming until I am locked. I have had many others use Qinna on me over the years. one of those was Yang Jwing Ming, and I have always felt it coming and sometimes I can counter it and sometimes I cannot (With Yang Jwing Miing I could not) but I always felt it coming. With my Yang Taiji sifu I never felt it coming and when I asked him how he does it his only answer was "You lock yourself"

Another style I do, likely my favorite style, is Xingyiquan and looking at it you likely will not see something you would call beautiful but internally and based on its flexibility in application it is amazing and in its directness and its assumed simplicity it is a thing of beauty in my opinion. And for the record, another style I dabbled in, Wing Chun I feel is a thing of beauty as well for the very same reasons


----------



## Cyriacus (Apr 17, 2012)

Jenna said:


> Thank you for your thoughts.  And so what - if anything - would you in your opinion consider as beautiful MA practice?  Thank you



You sometimes ask the most perfectly difficult question for Me to answer.
For Me, being impressed by sheer force and perceiving Beauty tend to blur a bit. Ill be more visually pleased by a group of people in identical black/white/red/whatever outfits doing Stance>Punch>Punch>Punch > Step Forward > Repeat, than people jumping and flipping around and whatnot.
For example, I cant sit through 30 seconds of this without becoming dreadfully uninterested.




But I can watch this through with a smile.




I think that best conveys My standpoint.


----------



## Jenna (Apr 17, 2012)

Xue Sheng said:


> The forms are pretty to watch and tuishou (push hands) can be beautiful as well in practice. However in application not so much, there is not a lot of beauty in a strike to teh head or a qinna lock to the viewer and in most cases to the one the lock is applied to. However when my taiji sifu locks me it is amazing. I never know it is coming until I am locked. I have had many others use Qinna on me over the years. one of those was Yang Jwing Ming, and I have always felt it coming and sometimes I can counter it and sometimes I cannot (With Yang Jwing Miing I could not) but I always felt it coming. With my Yang Taiji sifu I never felt it coming and when I asked him how he does it his only answer was "You lock yourself"
> 
> Another style I do, likely my favorite style, is Xingyiquan and looking at it you likely will not see something you would call beautiful but internally and based on its flexibility in application it is amazing and in its directness and its assumed simplicity it is a thing of beauty in my opinion. And for the record, another style I dabbled in, Wing Chun I feel is a thing of beauty as well for the very same reasons


And you perceive no beauty in the technical precision of those strikes or locks?  It is performed with grace and with an element that makes you feel you are applying the lock to yourself (that is quite Aiki I think ) then is that not beautiful practice epitomised in fluent technique do you think?

I am interested in why you do not consider these styles to contain anything beautiful?  Are you of the mind that the pure utility and function of these styles is incongruent with anything beautiful?  I think this is an issue with certain arts.  I think it is often an issue with the art that I practice too.  The perception of beauty makes some feel there is no martial utility.  Hmm.. I am interested in the disparity between how you view some practices within a style as attractive and others as utilitarian perhaps in a martial sense?  Thank you again for your thoughts 




Cyriacus said:


> You sometimes ask the most perfectly difficult question for Me to answer.
> For Me, being impressed by sheer force and perceiving Beauty tend to blur a bit. Ill be more visually pleased by a group of people in identical black/white/red/whatever outfits doing Stance>Punch>Punch>Punch > Step Forward > Repeat, than people jumping and flipping around and whatnot.
> For example, I cant sit through 30 seconds of this without becoming dreadfully uninterested.
> [/video]
> ...


Ah I am sorry to be asking difficult questions only I think I am not asking difficult questions dear Cyriacus only you are stubborn and do not always answer what I am asking  And so for you force and beauty blur, and excuse my english then that means they are hard to distinguish from each other?  Does beautiful MA practice as you perceive it require force?  Yes I understand that you are visually pleased by synchronisation of multiple practitioners? 

And well that first clip reminds me of this  



 and but I like that and so if you like synchronised practice then what is it about that synchronised practice that you cannot sit through? 

And the Capoeira is always a treat to watch I think.  Thank you for posting these and for expressing your opinions.


----------



## Cyriacus (Apr 17, 2012)

Jenna said:


> Ah I am sorry to be asking difficult questions only I think I am not asking difficult questions dear Cyriacus only you are stubborn and do not always answer what I am asking  And so for you force and beauty blur, and excuse my english then that means they are hard to distinguish from each other?  Does beautiful MA practice as you perceive it require force?  Yes I understand that you are visually pleased by synchronisation of multiple practitioners?
> 
> And well that first clip reminds me of this
> 
> ...



Well, Yeah, I can be stubborn 

Its more like, in order for Me to see something Martial Artsy as being visually appealing, it has to involve Force. So Yeah, pretty much.

Capoeira is indeed a treat to watch 

I would watch the Video, but tragically;
This video contains content from SME. It is not available in your country.

Sorry about that.​


----------



## Jenna (Apr 17, 2012)

Cyriacus said:


> Well, Yeah, I can be stubborn
> 
> Its more like, in order for Me to see something Martial Artsy as being visually appealing, it has to involve Force. So Yeah, pretty much.


Then must the visual appeal be proportional to the force?  Precision of technique is not to be favoured over force?




Cyriacus said:


> Capoeira is indeed a treat to watch


Is Capoeira forceful?




Cyriacus said:


> I would watch the Video, but tragically;
> This video contains content from SME. It is not available in your country.
> 
> Sorry about that.​


Well that is because you are in *the wrong country*!   One day you will visit London and then you can watch that video and life and its meaning will be revealed to you and it will be your epiphany   Ah it is probably for the best you do not see it.  It had images that would scar your mind I think..


----------



## lklawson (Apr 17, 2012)

chrispillertkd said:


> The apprehension of beauty is done by perceiving the characteristic in another object or person. It is, therefore, objective. It's only subjective in the sense that it's quite possible that the subject (the person viewing the beautiful object) doesn't recognize the beauty in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No offense, but what you've written above is nonsensical.  It's, frankly illogical.  Nor is it the "study" which you've referred having made to and which I've asked for.  So far, it looks to me as if your study is simply a collection of internally inconsistent philosophic experiments not the research of actual concrete facts.

Look, I know where this is going.  I won't be able to convince you of my position and, if this is the your supporting arguments then you'll never be able to convince me of your position.

Frankly, I'm just going to give up on it.  For me to continue would just be making enemies where I had none before or, at best, comparing penis lengths.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Cyriacus (Apr 17, 2012)

Jenna said:


> Then must the visual appeal be proportional to the force?  Precision of technique is not to be favoured over force?
> 
> *Well, it can have a little visual flare more than force, but preferably, Yes. Proportional. And yeah, Technique really doesnt impress Me much. Force is much more visually pleasing in My eyes.*
> 
> ...



Quick, I need to think of something productive to say in closing!


----------



## Cyriacus (Apr 17, 2012)

lklawson said:


> Look, I know where this is going.  I won't be able to convince you of my position and, if this is the your supporting arguments then you'll never be able to convince me of your position.
> 
> Frankly, I'm just going to give up on it.  For me to continue would just be making enemies where I had none before or, at best, comparing penis lengths.
> 
> ...



Someone should dedicate an entire Sticky Thread to that statement


----------



## chrispillertkd (Apr 17, 2012)

lklawson said:


> No offense, but what you've written above is nonsensical. It's, frankly illogical. Nor is it the "study" which you've referred having made to and which I've asked for. So far, it looks to me as if your study is simply a collection of internally inconsistent philosophic experiments not the research of actual concrete facts.



Well, it wasn't "my study" because I'm not going to distill several college and graduate level courses and books on aesthetics to an online forum post or two  I said I'd gladly discuss things with you and asked about the nature of beauty. Why wouldn't we start at the beginning since if people mean different things by the same word then they will be talking at cross purposes? But it does seem obvious that your definition is, while perhaps not unique, certainly not common as the dictionary definition that Cyriacus posted makes plain. If you think my posts are nonsensical, however, there's not much point in continuing the discussion (nor has there been much point in several thousand years of philosophy, apparently  )

You're certainly free to hold your opinion, of course, but if you really do think beauty is subjective then it goes back to my statement before. All you can say on the subject is "I like that" or "I don't like that." You can't say whether anything, including martial arts, are beautiful _in se_.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 17, 2012)

Jenna said:


> I am interested in why you do not consider these styles to contain anything beautiful?  Are you of the mind that the pure utility and function of these styles is incongruent with anything beautiful?  I think this is an issue with certain arts.  I think it is often an issue with the art that I practice too.  The perception of beauty makes some feel there is no martial utility.  Hmm.. I am interested in the disparity between how you view some practices within a style as attractive and others as utilitarian perhaps in a martial sense?  Thank you again for your thoughts



Ultimately beauty is in the eye of the beholder and often many do not agree with what I see as beautiful. My Yang Taiji sifu knocks me to the ground with high pat, to me, is beautiful and might cool to. Or in sparing when my 2nd Xingyi sifu and beat the heck out of me, but I got in a few good shots or when a Southern mantis guy gave me a beat down years ago, those are all might cool and beautifully done
Personally I think Xingyiquan done well is a thing of beauty but many who see it feel it is linear and boring.

Xingyiquan






I also tend to see Chen style Taijiquan as more aesthetically pleasing than Yang style Taijiquan and one reason for that is the overt fajin although many may disagree. I also like the Tung Ying Chieh Yang Long form looks better than the current Yang Family long form too. But then I like the overt example of the martial art

I see beauty in the way my Yang sifu does Qinna, but generally I would call it amazement at seeing his level of skill. There is beauty in the proper application of Fan Through Back or push through the mountain or to be more exact  &#23665;&#36890;&#33218; (Shan Tong Be) and more so if you can skillfully take that application to Turn Body, Chop with Fist &#25735;&#36523;&#25462; (Zhuan Shen Pie Chui) that done properly is a beautiful thing. However the result of that is someone got hit pretty hard and has a broken arm and although it is the attacker whose arm is broken and although it had to be done in self-defense that broken arm is never a thing of beauty nor should it be thought of as such. Because to me martial arts in application as it applies to real fighting are very serious and should never be taken lightly or seen as something beautiful because if they are, in my opinion, that is a bad thing. Take it lightly and you will find it easy to break an arm, see it as beautiful and you may go out and break arms for the pure joy and beauty of it. The form can be beautiful, practicing the application can be beautiful but ultimately the reality of it is that it is violent and nasty and the actual violence of it, IMO, is not beautiful nor should it ever be thought of as such. But equally important is the reality of it should not be forgotten, ignored or candy coated, that too is a bad thing


----------



## chrispillertkd (Apr 17, 2012)

Jenna said:


> Do you think MA practice can be beautiful?



 I never really answered this question but let me just say that, yes I think this is very possible. In his Encyclopedia of Taekwon-Do, in fact, General Choi, Hong Hi states that "Taekwon-Do is an art of self-defense which aims at a noble moral rearmament, high degree of intellectual achievement, graceful techniques, formidible power and beauty of physical form..." In other words, grace and beauty are two of the goals of Taekwon-Do training. 



> Are there examples of practice or practitioners in your own MA that you would regard as demonstrating beautiful practice?



I have seen many of them over the years. Limiting my answer to only Taekwon-Doin you can easily see beauty in the techniques of practitioners such as Noemi Prone, Jaroslav Suska, Hwang Su Il, Pak Chong Hyon (who, for my money, has even better tul than Hwang Su Il), Joel Denis, and others. I would point out, too, that the exhibition of beauty in Taekwon-Do should not mean a sacrifice of power. Additionally, it isn't something that is necessarily limited to patterns, as you can see in sparring matches of people like Hwang Su Il. That man is often poetry in motion in the ring.



> I might class beauty in MA practice as a kind of effortless physical fluency and efficiency. Does that sound congruent do you think? I think there is beauty regardless of the discipline. I wonder do you agree?



I think there's a lot of truth in this. I'd tend to say that beauty can be demonstrated in the techniques themselves and effort is perhaps inversely proportionate to being able to display that beauty. When you get to what you call "effortless physical fluency and efficiency" maybe I'd call that a demonstartion of mastery. It's like the difference between a painter and a master artist. They can both produce beautiful works of art, but the master can do so seemingly effortlessly (after spending years of hard work at his craft, of course!). 
As I've heard Grand Master Chuck Sereff say, "Good technique is forged on the anvil of hard training and tempered with sweat." 



> I could be off mark though. Can I ask, do you think beauty and functionality are mutually exclusive concepts in MA?



Not at all. People often talk about fighting being ugly, and I can see there point. But it's possible to execute fully functional techniques that demonstrate physical beauty, I think. Easy to do? No, but certainly possible. There is also the beauty of effortless execution. The mastery a person displays being able to absolutely control the distance between an opponent and hit him at will has its own beauty to it, I think. 

Thanks for adding such a great topic for discussion!

Pax,

Chris


----------



## oftheherd1 (Apr 17, 2012)

RobinTKD said:


> I think martial arts can be beautiful when used against an opponent, Judo can look beautiful when a throw is administered perfectly, plus i find some of the techniques used here beautiful.



I am curious.  Could you identify some of these (by the clock) that you find beautiful?  Thanks for your reply.


----------



## Jenna (Apr 18, 2012)

Xue Sheng said:


> Ultimately beauty is in the eye of the beholder and often many do not agree with what I see as beautiful. My Yang Taiji sifu knocks me to the ground with high pat, to me, is beautiful and might cool to. Or in sparing when my 2nd Xingyi sifu and beat the heck out of me, but I got in a few good shots or when a Southern mantis guy gave me a beat down years ago, those are all might cool and beautifully done
> Personally I think Xingyiquan done well is a thing of beauty but many who see it feel it is linear and boring.


Yes, I would only wish to know what people as individuals regard as beautiful practice   As you say, there is no overall concensus.  That is as it should be I think 


Xue Sheng said:


> Xingyiquan
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why do you think the practice of an art can be regarded in such dichotomous terms?  That is can be seen as beautiful in one context and violent and nasty in another context?  Is is not more consistent to say it is all beautiful or all violent and nasty since the movements are the same, no?  I would be interested in your thoughts.  Thank you


----------



## Jenna (Apr 18, 2012)

chrispillertkd said:


> I never really answered this question but let me just say that, yes I think this is very possible. In his Encyclopedia of Taekwon-Do, in fact, General Choi, Hong Hi states that "Taekwon-Do is an art of self-defense which aims at a noble moral rearmament, high degree of intellectual achievement, graceful techniques, formidible power and beauty of physical form..." In other words, grace and beauty are two of the goals of Taekwon-Do training.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And thank you Chris for contributing to the discussion.  It is interesting to hear that viewpoint adopted by the General himself.  Do you think beauty of physical form is a tenet that is adhered to in TKD as you have observed it?  Or is that element forgotten or simply de-prioritised in normal practice?  And thank you for listing those you consider to practice with that fluidity and flow.  I would not only agree that beauty should never be at the expense of power, I might suggest that beautiful technique can actually be the derivation of that power.  If technique is flawless and practice is flowing and with the maximum efficiency in energy transformation then that is not only a beautiful thing, it is also a powerful and effective thing.  That is my opinion   As you say, this is not easy to do, I think though that beautiful practice is not often something we aim for, perhaps imo, mistaking it for something soft or lacking function or effectiveness.  I would suggest that to AIM for beautiful practice is to engineer for oneself power and efficacy in how one practices MA   What do you think?  Thank you again for taking time to outline your thoughts.


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Apr 18, 2012)

Jenna said:


> Do you think that the context decides how beautiful a practice is?  I am almost excluding MA when called upon in anger, I mean though can sparring or tournament fighting never demonstrate that beauty?



what do you mean by context? Do you mean like you suggested in sparring or tournament fighting? or simply watching someone run through forms? 

Despite when it is used i think it could be beautiful. it just depends on the person observing. Whether it comes from the pure grace and fluid movements or raw power and bone crushing strength it can be a thing of beauty.

B


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 18, 2012)

Jenna said:


> Yes, I would only wish to know what people as individuals regard as beautiful practice   As you say, there is no overall concensus.  That is as it should be I think
> 
> Why do you think the practice of an art can be regarded in such dichotomous terms?  That is can be seen as beautiful in one context and violent and nasty in another context?  Is is not more consistent to say it is all beautiful or all violent and nasty since the movements are the same, no?  I would be interested in your thoughts.  Thank you



I don't see any issue here, it is simply reality.

A fighter jet can be a thing of beauty but it is capable of great acts of violence. A taiji form can also be beautiful to watch but it is also cable of committing acts of violence. The violent side should never be forgotten or ignored. A gun or a sword can be beautiful to look at but you should not forget they are weapons in my opinion


----------



## chrispillertkd (Apr 18, 2012)

Jenna said:


> And thank you Chris for contributing to the discussion. It is interesting to hear that viewpoint adopted by the General himself.



 Indeed, I remember the first time I read that and thought "Really?" It makes much more sense now, however. I think aesthetics is something that people in martial arts often over look, and not just in the area of physical techniques. I think an appreciation of beauty is (potentially) inherent to martial arts practice. A certain decorum is a manifestation of beauty in one's every day action, for example, and in Taekwon-Do etiquette is a big part of training. It shouldn't be forced or affected but rather develop over time as a natural result of training.



> Do you think beauty of physical form is a tenet that is adhered to in TKD as you have observed it? Or is that element forgotten or simply de-prioritised in normal practice?


 
I think that it varies depending on the person. All too often I've seen people perform patterns and sacrifice power for what they think is a concentration on the physical form or appearance of the technique. But that can really result in a facade more than actual beauty. Since techniques are physical movements through space and time I think that their aesthetical aspect includes not only how it looks at the end, when its execution is complete, but the movement as a whole and that includes the generation of power with the body. It's why when people pose out kicks or otherwise alter techniques in order to "look nice" they miss the point. People often critique such kicks as being impractical because you're balancing on one leg for a long time, but it goes deeper than that, IMO. When performed correctly (with power, speed, balance/grace, effortless motion, and a proper retraction - which really is an emphasis that gets overlooked, etc.) then you have a great example of beauty.

Conversley, when people concentrate simply on hitting an opponent as hard as they can without focusing on the proper form they can often do things like _fall down after the kick lands. Sure, you may've scored a point, but what good is it? By sacrificing the form (aesthetic ideal) so much you've made the generation of power nearly meaningless since you're now in a very bad position. 




			And thank you for listing those you consider to practice with that fluidity and flow. I would not only agree that beauty should never be at the expense of power, I might suggest that beautiful technique can actually be the derivation of that power. If technique is flawless and practice is flowing and with the maximum efficiency in energy transformation then that is not only a beautiful thing, it is also a powerful and effective thing. That is my opinion 

Click to expand...


Absolutely! It's perhaps paradoxical that aesthetics and power are related, but I think not contradictory. I think a good example of the expression of power through beauty can be seen in this video of Joel Denis performing the pattern Moon-Moo:






Part of the reason he generates good power is because he's very technically correct. I've seen people do slower slow motion kicks, higher jumps, etc. but very few who have patterns as beautiful as this. It's stylized combat. The decorum or imperterbility that people should exhibit while performing patterns should eventually make its way into their fighting. It's an expression of indomitable spirit while not losing one's courtesy, I think. There's an inherent attractiveness in such behavior, I think, and that is, of course, an effect of beauty. As Thomas Aquinas says, something isn't beautiful because you love it, you love something because it's beautiful. 




			As you say, this is not easy to do, I think though that beautiful practice is not often something we aim for, perhaps imo, mistaking it for something soft or lacking function or effectiveness. I would suggest that to AIM for beautiful practice is to engineer for oneself power and efficacy in how one practices MA  What do you think? Thank you again for taking time to outline your thoughts.
		
Click to expand...


I think you are definnitely on to spomething. Perhaps one doesn't need to  specifically think about developing beauty, if they concentrate on perfecting the techniques themselves which would include power development, but I don't think it would necessarily hurt. The danger is, as I said before, when you conceptualize beauty as being merely a surface appearance. If that happens you tend to not even get that. It's when you go for the deeper meaning that you get what you're after in the first place.

Pax,

Chris_


----------



## Jenna (Apr 19, 2012)

chrispillertkd said:


> Indeed, I remember the first time I read that and thought "Really?" It makes much more sense now, however. I think aesthetics is something that people in martial arts often over look, and not just in the area of physical techniques. I think an appreciation of beauty is (potentially) inherent to martial arts practice. A certain decorum is a manifestation of beauty in one's every day action, for example, and in Taekwon-Do etiquette is a big part of training. It shouldn't be forced or affected but rather develop over time as a natural result of training.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


_
This is a super post, thank you again Chris for making all these points so cogently, I am very happy to read what you have written.  That clip is an excellent example also, thank you   I think you have it as I see it myself that the generation of power is exactly because of that technical excellence.  I think kata / patterns are often perceived as worthless against the rigours of MA in the real world.  I have always argued that patterns are a demonstration of technical ability - to paraphrase, they are an example of beautiful practice in that MA.  I think the essence of a pattern is to encourage this beautiful practice not for the sakae of it and but instead to endow the practitioner with the ultimate effective technique.  It is something beautiful to watch in grading and but when flowing and fluid in randori practice, kata and pattern work can be spun into a piece of fightwork that is truly stunning.  That is my opinion   Have to give you ample kudos for having the nous to summon a quote from Thomas Aquinas!  You have a knowledge to know these things  Thank you again for your conversation, I am grateful indeed to you._


----------



## Black Belt Jedi (Apr 20, 2012)

There can be beauty to the Martial Arts. The importance is having fluidity in forms in order to evade attacks and counter attack with very little effort.


----------



## Jenna (Apr 21, 2012)

Black Belt Jedi said:


> There can be beauty to the Martial Arts. The importance is having fluidity in forms in order to evade attacks and counter attack with very little effort.


Thank you.  And can you say is beauty _necessary _to achieve flow? is it _important _and but not necessary to achieve that flow? or is beauty _not at all necessary_ and fluidity can be achieved without any reference to beautiful practice?


----------



## Black Belt Jedi (Apr 22, 2012)

Jenna said:


> Thank you.  And can you say is beauty _necessary _to achieve flow? is it _important _and but not necessary to achieve that flow? or is beauty _not at all necessary_ and fluidity can be achieved without any reference to beautiful practice?



Well, it all depends on what the templates of the kata does to neutralize the acts of physical violence. Others may think that there is beauty in the kata because the deadly techniques are hidden, or beauty and flash is in the kata for competition purposes. When performing a traditional kata in tournaments, I put a little bit of flash in the kata, but try not to overdo it. But at the end it all depends on knowing why this movement is done that way.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Apr 22, 2012)

Just to add a bit to what I was saying before, I think that perhaps Gen. Choi's training as a calligrapher was influential on his comments about the relationship between Taekwon-Do and aesthetics. I have seen originals of his calligraphy and own a couple of prints of his work and his ability was excellent. One of the ideas in the east about calligraphy is that a person's calligraphy reveals his personality in a profound manner. His strengths, talents, flaws and weaknesses are all revealed by the use of the brush. Additionally, calligraphy requires a total commitment. Once you put the brush to the paper you have to complete the character, there is no stopping or correcting. Despite the need to follow the structure of the words and conform to their structure amazing creativity can also be exhibited by the skilled calligrapher; he exhibits beauty through the forms of the characters.

Similar to calligraphy, Gen. Choi's Taekwon-Do emphasizes not stopping once a movement has been started (this full commitment is important in generating power, as well as for giving Taekwon-Do its characteristic aesthetic appearance). Extraneous movement must be avoided as you conform your movements to the technique's pattern. But doing this in no way diminishes the ability to exhibit true virtuosity. As well, there are several patterns whose diagrams are based on different Hanja (the Chinese characters used in Korean writing; diagrams that follow the characters for King, Scholar, and Mountain can all be found in ITF patterns). Certain techniques are actually named after Hangul (the native Korean script developed by King Se-Jong; the "L-Stance," for example is really _Niunja Sogi_ named after the _niun_ character). It would be hard to argue that Gen. Choi's training as a calligrapher didn't at least influence these things. They all work together to give Taekwon-Do its characteristic beauty.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Balrog (May 17, 2012)

Jenna said:


> Can I ask, do you think beauty and functionality are mutually exclusive concepts in MA?


There is a virtue in simplicity.  Someone who is expert in their discipline will make it look simple.  As a result, one will perceive the beauty of the technique because it is done with such simplicity.  It's like watching a White Belt and a Black Belt throw a side kick.  One struggles, the other has balance, timing, focus, power, etc., from years of training.  One has potential beauty, the other has actual beauty.

My $0.02 worth....


----------



## LeandrodeSouzaCardoso (Jun 3, 2012)

Beautiful is a very subjective concept, look for example the art I practice, Taijiquan(Tai chi chuan) and Baguazhang, both have very circular and gentle moves, are probably the more beautiful martial arts( don't confound beautiful with spectacular, showy moves), but in my opinion have a lot to prove their effectiveness, due to bad demonstrations and lack of real fighting demonstrations and fighting against others martial arts. Martial arts can be used for various purposes, look for example the medicial (&#27668;&#21151;qigong) uses of tai chi chuan, they can be also philosophies as the ying yang of internal Chinese martial arts, and the change from "jutsu" (simply skill) to "do" &#36947;(way, philosophy) of the Japanese martial arts; then we can have martial arts only for the purpose of being beautiful, only to be effective, a balance of the two, or perhaps be beautiful and effective.


----------



## Jenna (Jun 3, 2012)

LeandrodeSouzaCardoso said:


> and the change from "jutsu" (simply skill) to "do" &#36947;(way, philosophy) of the Japanese martial arts; then we can have martial arts only for the purpose of being beautiful, only to be effective, a balance of the two, or perhaps be beautiful and effective.


There are MA deaigned only for the purpose of being beautiful? Which arts are these do you think?


----------



## Highlander (Nov 19, 2014)

.


----------



## Highlander (Nov 19, 2014)

KempoGuy06 said:


> MA is beautiful. Watching practitioners of Bagua for example. They way they move is incredible. Or even in my style, watching my friend who is a 3rd degree perform some of his earlier forms, its simply amazing. the fluidity is outstanding.
> 
> one of the things i find "beautiful" about the MA's is that its amazing to watch, especially when it is someone that has a lot of skill, but also because of how deadly and destructive it could be. Its like a tiger. they are beautiful and majestic animals but they are also 800lbs of pure power.
> 
> B



Very well said!


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 19, 2014)

I watched a video where a tiger jumped out of the grass to kill these people sitting on top of the elephant. The elephant was having none of it; so, the people lived. It was beautiful to watch, but nobody was thinking that at the time.


----------



## sfs982000 (Nov 19, 2014)

Absolutely I think that all martial arts are beautiful.  From forms to even sparring there is an inherent beauty to it all.


----------



## Elbowgrease (Nov 19, 2014)

I really can't explain (or maybe justify) this statement, but it helps sometimes. Beauty has no opposite. Things are beautiful and, not beautiful but. 
Some arts look nicer than others, some don't look like anything, but they're terribly effective. Even seeing someone just starting out struggle and sweat and fight through the first steps when they are moving without grace or elegance, but they're doing it. That's what it's all about. 
I know that's probably not at all what you had in mind. 
Thanks for posting this.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Nov 19, 2014)

Nice to see this thread alive once again.
Certainly there is a beauty to be found in the martial arts. It can be found  in some of the graceful movements of some and in the deadly movements of others.  It can be found in the philosophy and thoughts of some of the founders and in the innocent questions of the youngest practitioners.


and then there was this young lady  http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/54...g/114273-most-beautiful-tai-chi-champion.html


----------



## zzj (Nov 19, 2014)

tshadowchaser said:


> Nice to see this thread alive once again.
> Certainly there is a beauty to be found in the martial arts. It can be found  in some of the graceful movements of some and in the deadly movements of others.  It can be found in the philosophy and thoughts of some of the founders and in the innocent questions of the youngest practitioners.
> 
> 
> and then there was this young lady  http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/54...g/114273-most-beautiful-tai-chi-champion.html



Ah, Ma Chang. Beautiful in every way, even in the irony and poignancy of her passing... 

The Japanese have a very good way of expressing the quality of beauty in all things grand or tragic, simple and transient. Can't remember ther term though.


----------



## cloud dancing (Nov 22, 2014)

There was one day watching master Li do the form.I started crying.he was so empty but beautiful.I tried to hide my tears and keep it inside.wish I had let him see how affected I was by just watching him go through moves he'd done countless hundedred thousand times.What is the sense of having feelings if one seeks to keep them hidden.so many times seeing lovelines and hiding my feelings he moved  perfectly but inside was so totally empty.    Light shines darkness leaves.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Nov 22, 2014)

There is a beauty in watching a person learn.  There is a beauty in learning.
What may be the most beautiful thing in the arts is that of a person learning more about whom they are and maybe even finding more about their place in the universe. Meditation in the arts brings about a beauty within the mind. This can also be seen in forms for they can be a sort of meditation in and of their own. 
The development of a person from one mind set  to another is a thing of beauty. 
Beauty in the arts comes not just from the physical but also from within


----------



## Shai Hulud (Nov 30, 2014)

I find a certain grace in how most, if not all martial arts strive for economy of movement and efficient use and transfer of energy in their tactics. As a practitioner myself I've grown to appreciate how in Keysi techniques are broken down and drilled separately, but then sown together seamlessly to make up the flow of a confrontation/encounter.

Not that I am aware with all, or even most martial arts forms, but I am pretty sure that there's a _rhythm_ or _groove _all practitioners get into at some point in their training- where we and all concepts of "me", "I" and "ourselves" just fade away and become the art itself. Little something I learned in Judo and whilst reflecting on the Taoteching.

It's that grace, that absolute form of self expression that, ironically, also nullifies our personalities and puts us all on the same level in our practice, that I admire most dearly. I find that every well-executed technique we perform in our respective parts define who we are as practitioners - not only as persons striving for whatever our goals are, but all the same in the sense that we've found harmony with our own minds, bodies, and all external forces and laws that we must abide by. It's sublime.


----------



## Transk53 (Nov 30, 2014)

Personally I have always viewed boxing as poetry in motion. Thinking about it, one or twice I have said "what a beautiful punch" Suppose like a spider, there is still beauty in everything and all.


----------



## Buka (Nov 30, 2014)

Anyone who doesn't find beauty in Martial Arts ain't spent no time in dojo.

But, what tshadowchaser said, about learning....that gives me chicken skin.


----------



## Transk53 (Nov 30, 2014)

Chicken skin?


----------



## Buka (Nov 30, 2014)

Sorry, "chicken skin" is a slang term from Hawai'ian pidgin meaning "goosebumps". I've been using it for thirty years. I forget we're an International forum - which is pretty damn cool in itself.


----------



## Transk53 (Nov 30, 2014)

Buka said:


> Sorry, "chicken skin" is a slang term from Hawai'ian pidgin meaning "goosebumps". I've been using it for thirty years. I forget we're an International forum - which is pretty damn cool in itself.



No worries. Mad ain't it. We use prickly skin as well as goosebumps.


----------

