# What makes one a Martial 'ARTIST'?



## geocad (Apr 30, 2007)

This question has been on my mind for many years but I never thought to ask it because I thought that someday I could answer it for myself. So far, no luck. So I'm asking you these questions...

1. What makes one a Martial Artist compared to just a student of the martial art we study?

2. Are you considered a martial artist just because you are studying some form of martial art even though you may still lack the more advanced techniques and skills? If so, why?

3. Does a certain color belt level determine if you are a martial artist? 

Sorry, but for me, I've never felt comfortable considering myself a martial artist. The word 'artist', to me IMHO, refers to some level of proven expertise. Just because I can draw a picture doesn't make my work 'art'. 

4. When, if ever, did you consider yourself a martial artist and what was the turning point in your life?

So far I think I've read more and learned more from threads at this forum than my History of Southeast Asia class I had in college. Way cool website!!


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 30, 2007)

geocad said:


> 3. Does a certain color belt level determine if you are a martial artist?


 
Well it sure as heck is not that one. If it is there are a whole lot of CMA people that would not be considered martial artists. 

It is a matter of personal opinion and will likely cause a whole lot of debate, but to me the only person that can make the decision whether or not you are a martial artist is you.


----------



## morph4me (Apr 30, 2007)

geocad said:


> This question has been on my mind for many years but I never thought to ask it because I thought that someday I could answer it for myself. So far, no luck. So I'm asking you these questions...
> 
> 1. What makes one a Martial Artist compared to just a student of the martial art we study?


 
The ability to apply the techniques and principles you've learned, sucessfully in ways that you haven't been taught, because they fit the situation.



geocad said:


> 2. Are you considered a martial artist just because you are studying some form of martial art even though you may still lack the more advanced techniques and skills? If so, why?


 
Yes, I was at a seminar this weekend where one of the instructors put it this way " There are some people who have 20 years experience, and there are others who have 1 year experience 20 times". If you don't evolve, you aren't a martial artist.



geocad said:


> 3. Does a certain color belt level determine if you are a martial artist?


 
No, there are martial artists very early on, and there are some people ranked very highly who will never be martial artists.



geocad said:


> Sorry, but for me, I've never felt comfortable considering myself a martial artist. The word 'artist', to me IMHO, refers to some level of proven expertise. Just because I can draw a picture doesn't make my work 'art'.
> 
> 4. When, if ever, did you consider yourself a martial artist and what was the turning point in your life?


 
I never really thought about, I guess it happened while I was busy training.



geocad said:


> So far I think I've read more and learned more from threads at this forum than my History of Southeast Asia class I had in college. Way cool website!!


 
This is a great community, with many knowledgable people from different styles, ranks, and points of view. I've learned quite a bit here.


----------



## Andrew Green (Apr 30, 2007)

*Mod Note:

Thread moved to Philosophy and Spirituality in the Arts

Andrew Green
MT Technical Admin*


----------



## geocad (Apr 30, 2007)

morph4me said:


> No, there are martial artists very early on, and there are some people ranked very highly who will never be martial artists.


 
Thank you! I may be too judgemental or biassed but a black belt instructor, IMHO, should be able to demonstrate the proper technique they are trying to teach even if they let themself go and gained a ton of extra weight. If they cannot, then maybe they should regain that skill prior to returning to the teaching arena.



morph4me said:


> This is a great community, with many knowledgable people from different styles, ranks, and points of view. I've learned quite a bit here.


 
I've decided to stick around this forum because there appears to be lots to learn from those more knowledgeable than myself.


----------



## exile (Apr 30, 2007)

geocad said:


> Sorry, but for me, I've never felt comfortable considering myself a martial artist. The word 'artist', to me IMHO, refers to some level of proven expertise. Just because I can draw a picture doesn't make my work 'art'.



The parsing of the compound noun `martial artist' that you're assuming isn't the right one, GC. Take an example like `nuclear physicist' . The parsing

[nuclear [physicist]]

with an adjective `nuclear' modifying a noun `physicist', would be wrong, implying as it does that the physicist is in some sense... what, radioactive? The actual word formation structure is 

[[nuclear physics]+ist] = one who does/studies/investigates nuclear physics.

Another example: `classical logician'. The structure isn't 

[classical [logician]]

Again, we're not talking about a logician who prefers togas or long, flowing robes of the sort Plato and his school wore! The parsing that corresponds to the meaning is rather

[classical logic]+ian]

meaning, someone who studies classical logical systems (those deriving from standard propositional and predicate calculi, as vs. say fuzzy logic or quantum logics or intuitionistic logics or whatever). Same with `radio astronomer', `Oriental historian' and so on and on. The source of `martial artist' is similarly

[[martial art]+ist] = one who practices or trains in a martial art. 

The sense of `art' is exactly the same as in `arts of war', or `the manly art of self-defense'&#8212;or `domestic arts' or whatever: i.e., _skills_. No one is saying that you have to be so good at karate or TKD or Southern Mantis that you're an artist, a kind of controlled-violence successor to Nureyev, eh? All you have to do to be a `martial artist' is be a practitioner of a `martial art' to _some degree of proficiency_. So when we say that a mediæval historian is one who `does' mediæval history, we're not saying that anyone who picks up an encyclopædia and opens it to the entry on `Middle Ages' is a mediæeval historian. Obviously a professor of history at a university whose special field is Europe during the period from 600 to 1400 AD or thereabouts is a mediaeval historian. Well, what about a graduate student in history working on a doctoral disseration in that same time period? Doe s/he qualify? How about an undergraduate writing an honors thesis on the development of Gothic architecture? At what point do we decide that the Xian/ist label can be applied to someone? That's not going to be possible to settle in advance. But the important point is that if you are studying a MA at a certain level of proficiency, you're a MAist, even if you aren't Nureyev (or even Fred Astaire)...


----------



## JBrainard (Apr 30, 2007)

I do not consider myself a martial artist, I consider myself a student. To me, the word "artist" denotes a certain level of skill. I don't really know what that level is. I suppose if an authority in my martial art of choice tells me that I have reached the level of skill to be considered an artist, then I am. But, even if I become a "martial artist," I will always be a student.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Apr 30, 2007)

To me martial 'artist' comes from attitude, rather than skill or time in rank.  There are many students (and more than a few black belts) I've known who weren't and probably won't ever be martial 'artists'.

Some people do martial arts the way they'd do bridge club or bowling -- it's a fun activity they participate in a few times a week.  There's nothing wrong with these folks.  I'm glad they're training, but they're not martial artists.

For a martial artist, the training is a facet of who they are.  It helps define them as a person, becomes a part of their goals, dreams, lifestyle.  That person is a martial artist, regardless of rank, skill or length of study.

It's sort like of the difference between a C&E Christian and somebody who truly believes.


----------



## geocad (Apr 30, 2007)

exile said:


> ...But the important point is that if you are studying a MA at a certain level of proficiency, you're a MAist, even if you aren't Nureyev (or even Fred Astaire)...


 
What a great explanation. Thank you. I am/was already aware of the meaning 'martial artist' and I whole heartedly agree with what you say above...'a certain level of proficiencey.'

So then what is that level of proficiencey? Is it ones ability to flow from one technique to another? Is it ones ability to apply those techniques in sport or actual combat and be victorious?

I can study martial arts (physically in the dojang or mentally when I meditate) but unless I'm applying what I've learned I find it hard to identify myself as 'artist'. And I definately do not think the over weight, off balanced, clumsy black belt teaching the kids, in my opinion, bad form (not bad katas, but bad technique or without explanation as to why) a martial artist. (Sorry, the Jar Head in me comes out sometimes. I believe in 'Lead by example' and if you cannot do it right then you should not be teaching it.)

Exile, you gave great examples (just as a Uni. Prof. does) to drive home your meaning. Those examples of occupations are also 'applied' in their life, which kind of fits with Bushido's post.

I also agree with Bushidomartialarts when he said 'the training is a facet of who they are' but I am not sure that when he said 'comes from attitude, rather than skill or time in rank' is also a clear example for all who study the martial arts. I think 'skill' or 'level of proficiency' should be a major part of the martial artist definition.

For me, I am of the same opinion as JBrainard with my martial arts training and just about everything else as well. I am a 'martial student.' I'm confident I can do lots of martial arts techniques in the dojang or sport/sparring competition. But I have not had to apply much of what I've learned (with the exception of a few bar fights in college) in real life situations, thankfully.

I hope I did not offend anyone.  It's not my intention to do so.  I'm just trying to educate myself by inquiring with those who have passion about martial arts.


----------



## stone_dragone (Apr 30, 2007)

This is a wonderful question and discussion!

I would have to answer it in a much simpler way (that way I can understand it)...

You are a martial artist when other martial artists recognize you as such; you are a master when other masters set a place for you at their table.


----------



## Blindside (Apr 30, 2007)

I consider that anyone who studies any martial art is a "martial artist."  That kid fingerpainting on the wall isn't Michaelangelo but he is an artist.  Actually I think placing the term "martial artist" on some sort of pedastel and thinking that is hard to qualify for smacks of some sort of elitism.  That white belt is just as much a martial artist as me, he just knows less.

Lamont


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Apr 30, 2007)

Blindside said:


> I consider that anyone who studies any martial art is a "martial artist."  That kid fingerpainting on the wall isn't Michaelangelo but he is an artist.  Actually I think placing the term "martial artist" on some sort of pedastel and thinking that is hard to qualify for smacks of some sort of elitism.  That white belt is just as much a martial artist as me, he just knows less.
> 
> Lamont



You make an interesting point.  I still think there's a degree of division.  Not everybody who throws a kick is a martial artist, just like there's a difference between fingerpainting a rough approximation of a butterfly vs. just putting your paint-smeared hands on mom's curtains.

But the elitism tag is probably accurate.  Thanks for bringing it up.


----------



## jdinca (Apr 30, 2007)

exile said:


> The parsing of the compound noun `martial artist' that you're assuming isn't the right one, GC. Take an example like `nuclear physicist' . The parsing
> 
> [nuclear [physicist]]
> 
> ...




How about "Physical Nuclearist"? 

Well put, btw.


----------



## HKphooey (Apr 30, 2007)

What does Artist mean to me?

An artist is someone that can take the basic fundamentals of process/skill and make it his/her own.

Take the painter... he knows the primamry colors, he knows how to mix colors, he know the basics of shadowing, he knows the basic of depth perception...

Now the artist... he makes the painting his own.  He mixes colors as no oned else has, he experiments with shadowing, he tirs different mediums, hem makes the painting his own.

I think the same can be said for the martial artist.


----------



## morph4me (Apr 30, 2007)

exile said:


> The parsing of the compound noun `martial artist' that you're assuming isn't the right one, GC.
> 
> [[martial art]+ist] = one who practices or trains in a martial art.
> 
> The sense of `art' is exactly the same as in `arts of war', or `the manly art of self-defense'or `domestic arts' or whatever: i.e., _skills_. No one is saying that you have to be so good at karate or TKD or Southern Mantis that you're an artist, a kind of controlled-violence successor to Nureyev, eh? All you have to do to be a `martial artist' is be a practitioner of a `martial art' to _some degree of proficiency_. So when we say that a mediæval historian is one who `does' mediæval history, we're not saying that anyone who picks up an encyclopædia and opens it to the entry on `Middle Ages' is a mediæeval historian. Obviously a professor of history at a university whose special field is Europe during the period from 600 to 1400 AD or thereabouts is a mediaeval historian. Well, what about a graduate student in history working on a doctoral disseration in that same time period? Doe s/he qualify? How about an undergraduate writing an honors thesis on the development of Gothic architecture? At what point do we decide that the Xian/ist label can be applied to someone? That's not going to be possible to settle in advance. But the important point is that if you are studying a MA at a certain level of proficiency, you're a MAist, even if you aren't Nureyev (or even Fred Astaire)...


 
Well put, as usual, but there is more to an artist, even a martial artist, than a degree of proficiency. Without a spark of creativity, a proficient practioner of martial arts would be a good martial technician, not necessarily a martial artist. That isn't a bad thing, but I think that the word artist, even in this case, has to take into account some degree of creativity.


----------



## exile (Apr 30, 2007)

geocad said:


> So then what is that level of proficiencey? Is it ones ability to flow from one technique to another? Is it ones ability to apply those techniques in sport or actual combat and be victorious?



Yes, and this is the hard one. I have my own take on it, which a couple of the subsequent posts to this one of yours bring up in different forms. But you see what's happening here, GC: everyone is struggling to give a valid criterion which still takes into account the fuzziness of the description `martial artist.' The thing is, some descriptions are inherently fuzzy&#8212;the classic example that philosophers love to go on about is `heap'&#8212;and that's true for certain categories of people as vs. others. So for instance, `British airforce 2nd lieutenant' isn't fuzzy at all. But `student' is very fuzzy. `MAist' is somewhere in between. The problem isn't the `martial art' part of the compound, it's the `-ist' suffix and what it covers that's the issue. I have my own take on what -ist covers here, but maybe I can get to it more gracefully by bringing in what some of the other people in this conversation have to say:



bushidomartialarts said:


> You make an interesting point.  I still think there's a degree of division.  Not everybody who throws a kick is a martial artist, just like there's a difference between fingerpainting a rough approximation of a butterfly vs. just putting your paint-smeared hands on mom's curtains.
> 
> But the elitism tag is probably accurate.  Thanks for bringing it up.



BushiMAs' point is that you aren't a martial artist simply because you do martial-art type things; he's getting, I think, at something like the ability to shape an outcome that's in line with your _well-defined_ intentions. The -ist part, for him, requires a certain control over the tools of the trade. Again, though, he's not saying just how much&#8212;because, I suspect, it's hard to get much more specific than this without sounding arbitrary.



HKphooey said:


> What does Artist mean to me?
> 
> An artist is someone that can take the basic fundamentals of process/skill and make it his/her own.
> 
> ...



And here's what I read HKph as saying: you're a MAist to the extent that you seriously experiment with the tools of the trade and learn how to shape them to bring about a desired effect that he can picture clearly (and which may be unexpected by everyone else, but makes sense to the MAist...)

Are these two views on the same page? I think they are, very close on that page in fact. And my own view is quite similar: you're a MAist when you practice a MA art at a level of competence where you start to see the components of that art as building blocks that you can assemble to bring about a result that accords with your intentions, and where your intentions are _clear_. I used to teach calligraphy in what I jokingly called my spare time, and what I used to tell my students is, you cannot create a beautify sequence of letters if you don't have a mental/visual image of what you want the outcome to look like. It's the same in the MAs, I think. A clear, sharp, well-defined picture of an outcome, and a sense of how to put together a series of techs to bring that outcome about... something like that is to me the core of what the -ist covers. 

But that's just my $.02...


----------



## HKphooey (May 1, 2007)

HKphooey said:


> What does Artist mean to me?
> 
> An artist is someone that can take the basic fundamentals of process/skill and make it his/her own.
> 
> ...


 
Boy do I need to stop multi-tasking!  Holy spell-check Batman!


----------



## Shaderon (May 1, 2007)

Blindside said:


> I consider that anyone who studies any martial art is a "martial artist." That kid fingerpainting on the wall isn't Michaelangelo but he is an artist. Actually I think placing the term "martial artist" on some sort of pedastel and thinking that is hard to qualify for smacks of some sort of elitism. That white belt is just as much a martial artist as me, he just knows less.
> 
> Lamont


 
I agree with this, I personally don't think you have to be at a certain level of proficiency to be a MAist, I think it's all in the attitude, if you believe you are, then you are.  (Unless of course you don't actually study an MA and are dissilusioned by thinking that watching films and buying a book qualifies you.)



HKphooey said:


> What does Artist mean to me?
> 
> An artist is someone that can take the basic fundamentals of process/skill and make it his/her own.
> 
> ...


 
To a point, I think this makes you a better MAist, but someone with the heart for it that learns in order to understand also qualifies.  



morph4me said:


> Well put, as usual, but there is more to an artist, even a martial artist, than a degree of proficiency. Without a spark of creativity, a proficient practioner of martial arts would be a good martial technician, not necessarily a martial artist. That isn't a bad thing, but I think that the word artist, even in this case, has to take into account some degree of creativity.


 
That makes a lot of sense, I think the term means different things to different people, we all have our preconceptions of what makes a true artist, not just an MAist, and we all have ideas of what a true MAist should be.  I would hesitate to call myself an MAist but plenty of people I know (mainly in Dan ranks) have said to me that they would call me so because of my attitude.   To really drill down to the meaning would be difficult, to pin it exactly, impossible.    We really are going to come down to a large area of opinions about the meaning, but it'd be good to witness that area reduced as much as possible.


----------



## tshadowchaser (May 1, 2007)

How much of ones spirit must be in his/her trainning to make one a martial artist?
Must one win a confrontation or only survive or can one lose a confrontation and be within the philosophy of a martial art?
Is it just training or and application that make one a martial artist, or is it a mind set?


----------



## JBrainard (May 1, 2007)

HKphooey said:


> Now the artist... he makes the painting his own. He mixes colors as no oned else has, he experiments with shadowing, he tirs different mediums, hem makes the painting his own.
> 
> I think the same can be said for the martial artist.


 
I think that was a great explanation. Once you have all of the "tools in your toolbox," as my teacher would say, it is up to you to make the art your own. Once you do so, you become an artist.


----------



## exile (May 1, 2007)

Shaderon said:


> I would hesitate to call myself an MAist but plenty of people I know (mainly in Dan ranks) have said to me that they would call me so because of my attitude.   To really drill down to the meaning would be difficult, to pin it exactly, impossible.    We really are going to come down to a large area of opinions about the meaning, but it'd be good to witness that area reduced as much as possible.





tshadowchaser said:


> Is it just training or and application that make one a martial artist, or is it a mind set?



These points of view also are on the same page, and I think they dovetail nicely with the previous ones, though not in completely obvious way. I think both of you are talking about something that I'd try to capture as a kind of _seriousness_ about what you're doing. Proficiency flows from seriousness (in the fullness of time, of course!) so although they aren't quite the same thing, they're related. For some people I've worked with, TKD is kind of an incidental part of their lives; it's not an endeavor that enters into their view of who they are. They do it, but it's not something they think about, or try to work on to consciously improve ... in other words, they don't take it seriously past a certain point. People I think of as MAists _think_ about what they're doing when they do TKD (or whatever art); it matters to them how a certain technique works or what a certain hyung is telling them about combat. And of course, such people do tend to get more proficient much faster.

Shads is right: we can only narrow the meaning down so much before we hit the level of irreconcilable individual variationwe're going to wind up with a circle, not a point, because `MAist' _is_ fuzzybut it's good to try to make the radius of that circle of variation as small as possible...


----------



## JBrainard (May 1, 2007)

exile said:


> ...`MAist' _is_ fuzzybut it's good to try to make the radius of that circle of variation as small as possible...


 
Consistency when accuracy is impossible?


----------



## Shaderon (May 1, 2007)

exile said:


> we're going to wind up with a circle, not a point, because `MAist' _is_ fuzzybut it's good to try to make the radius of that circle of variation as small as possible...


 

Fuzzy Logic???

*hangs head*  Sorry I'll behave....   :angel:


----------



## exile (May 1, 2007)

JBrainard said:


> Consistency when accuracy is impossible?



Yeah, or maybe, when precision is impossible... but yup, that's the idea! Good observation, nice and pithy.



Shaderon said:


> Fuzzy Logic???
> 
> *hangs head*  Sorry I'll behave....   :angel:





There's fuzzy logic. And then there's fuzzy _il_logic... we've had to deal with some o' that on, um, various other threads, eh? :wink1:

Maybe color terminology is the best analogy. People can pretty much agree 100% on distinguishing blue from red from yellowprimary colors are easy. When you bring green in, it gets a little tricker, but there'll be broad consensus. But there are various colors that particular people disagree on the label foris that a hot pink or a kind of magenta? (I've been having a... it's not an argument, it's a difference in name application, with someone in connection with patio chairs, believe it or not...). And you reach a certain point where it becomes, well, maybe that's pink to you, but it's not pink to me, it's magenta... and after that, there's nothing much to say. I think both proficiency and attitude criteria enter into the definition of `martial artist' that most people use, but there are going to be differences in the proportion in the mix from person to person. That's just the way it is...


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 1, 2007)

You know I HATE to repeat myself but I have already pretty much told you all, in another thread, what makes a martial artist, a badge, deputies and a paintbrush. 

Sorry, I just could not let that go I will skulk back to my cave now :uhyeah:


----------



## exile (May 1, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> You know I HATE to repeat myself but I have already pretty much told you all, in another thread, what makes a martial artist, a badge, deputies and a paintbrush.



I meant to rep you for that one... didn't I? 



Xue Sheng said:


> Sorry, I just could not let that go I will skulk back to my cave now :uhyeah:



I agree, it's too good to let pass unnoticed! So cheer up...


----------



## Shaderon (May 1, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> You know I HATE to repeat myself but I have already pretty much told you all, in another thread, what makes a martial artist, a badge, deputies and a paintbrush.
> 
> Sorry, I just could not let that go I will skulk back to my cave now :uhyeah:


 

Look Xue, I'm involved in that thread, I've read your opinion and I'm a bit upset to tell you the truth.

I have a badge, I have a paintbrush but I don't have deputies.   :wah:


----------

