# Fighting Science or Art?



## ammonihah99 (Aug 25, 2006)

This show Fight Science kind of provided a spring board for some thoughts I've been having. It premiered August 20th and I guess has an encore September 4th. Anyone seen it? Here's a preview:

http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/channel/fightscience/index.html

I'm curious to see if this sort of thing would be worth using in real life situations. I mean not just sensors showing how hard you can punch or fast you can move, because so much of that depends on other factors, not only how much martial arts training you've had (although that is a large factor). Maybe some other science resources as well, like doctors and such. I haven't seen the show, so I don't know how involved it is.

I've just been thinking a lot lately about how much of what we do in Kenpo is arts or science.

*Art: *[1] a human expression of skill, [2] a nonscientific branch of learning or [3] the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

*Science: *[1] a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts, [2] skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency or [3] truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws or an activity that appears to require study and method.

Which one of those definitions seems more like what we do in Kenpo? Isn't Kenpo supposed to be primarily for defense? Would we do what we do for aesthetic purposes or because it's human expression? I just can't see how any martial "art" that's based on *real* self-defense can be an art. But should we start referring to what we do generally as martial science?

So many of the things we do are scientifically oriented and the more I think about it, the more there has to be one way to most effectively execute a particular motion. Take Parting Wings (Flashing Daggers) for example, which has been a subject of discussion in the past. This is narrowing our focus of the technique, but judging by the effectiveness of each individual motion we have in our arsenal, which would be most effective for the block: a parry, a handsword, or a hammerfist?

I believe that _all movements are judged on a scale of effectiveness in direct relation to their objective._ So maybe the handswords would be more effective depending on what the objective is, right? Whenever I ask my instructor, "Could I do this?" He always responds, "Yes" no matter what. And it's true, I could, but is there a better way to do it? Maybe, depending on what my objective is.

I can see how why Dr. Chapel chose "Martial *Science* University" as the title for his school. And the more I study, the more I realize how important it is to be technical and learn as much as we can about physics, anatomy and physiology.

But at the same time is it possible to get too technical? I've read articles on a lot of technical aspects of the martial arts and it seems at times like there's just too many factors to worry about when you're faced with a life or death situation. But then again, maybe that's where training and practice comes into play.

Anyhow, just looking for your opinions.

Ammon


----------



## Brother John (Aug 25, 2006)

I believe a thing can be BOTH an art & a science, without losing its full impact in either arena.

....such as with Kenpo.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 25, 2006)

ammonihah99 said:
			
		

> *Art: *[1] a human expression of skill, [2] *a nonscientific branch of learning or* [3] the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.


 
Keep in mind, there is often a lot of science in art.

Understanding how to properly mix colors to get just the right color in a painting, for example.  

Understanding how firing a clay pot changes its structure, and melts and hardens glazes used in decorating pots and making them useable is another example.

I am an artist and my medium is silver and bronze.  I have a tremedous need to understand how heat and physical manipulation affects the metal when annealing or melting for a cast; how the appropriate solder works to bond the metal, and how tiny contaminants can destroy a piece.

You don't need an advanced degree in chemistry or physics or biology to be an artist, but there is definitely a lot of science in art and it is a mistake to think the two are separated.

Whether you call your martial training an "art" or a "science", it certainly contains elements of both.  I think the use of one term over another perhaps indicates the intended mindset of how a practitioner might approach his training, but one does not preclude the other and they are deeply entwined.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Aug 25, 2006)

Personally, I think it's more of a craft than either an art or science.

Jeff


----------



## crushing (Aug 25, 2006)

JeffJ said:
			
		

> Personally, I think it's more of a craft than either an art or science.
> 
> Jeff




Craft sounds like a pretty good one word answer to me, and it also describes Flying Crane's examples of combining art and science.


----------



## Sapper6 (Aug 25, 2006)

Brother John said:
			
		

> I believe a thing can be BOTH an art & a science, without losing its full impact in either arena.
> 
> ....such as with Kenpo.
> 
> ...


 
sure it can, but i certainly wouldn't relate such a thing to kenpo.

kenpo is a method of fighting.  man's interpretation of tactics and methods in a physical conflict...overshadowed by politics, lineage questioning, and other non-pertinent BS.  long live kenpo.  good riddance to the art.

...my last post.

cheers

:asian:


----------



## Danjo (Aug 26, 2006)

Classically, "art" was something higher than mere "Science". Science was the mechanical description of how something worked at it's basic level, whereas Art, was something greater than the sum of it's parts. It involved science, but was something more than that. It took all of the scientific elements and blended them in such a way that it raised it above the rest. Sort of like the difference between a drawing of a house done by a draftsman and one done by Rembrandt. Same tools used in both cases. Obvious skill used in both cases. But,the Rembrandt has that something extra that raises it to the level of art. Now, to be sure, there have been draftsmen that were also artists, i.e., Frank Loyd Wright, etc., but that also, was because there was that something more. He understood the same science as any other draftsman, but he took it to that higher plane.

As such, there are few martial artists, compared to martial scientists (Or perhaps craftsmen). Those that reach that level, usually become quite well known for it. Eric Lee, Bruce Lee, Joe Lewis, Ed Parker, et al. It's like the Judge said, "I might not be able to define it; but I know it when I see it." I think we all do.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Aug 26, 2006)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> sure it can, but i certainly wouldn't relate such a thing to kenpo.
> 
> kenpo is a method of fighting. man's interpretation of tactics and methods in a physical conflict...overshadowed by politics, lineage questioning, and other non-pertinent BS. long live kenpo. good riddance to the art.
> 
> ...



The martial arts, including Kempo, are moth science and art because they are both a systematic expression of truths as we best understand them, and that they are a creative and imaginative activity and means of expression of the individual within an established medium. As the martial arts are both a systematic evaluation of scientific principles as well as an interpretive excercise of each individual practicing them, they qualify as both an art and a science. 

While I believe you have a valid complaint against the politics, lineage, etc. all of which have little if anything to do with either the science or the art, I believe you are in error to say good riddence to the art. If the martial way (I think this may be a better term, because this is our lifestyle) is not scientific, we may as well be doing ballroom dance, because we have sacrificed its relevance to combat. If Kempo is not artistic, however, it loses its ability to be tailored to the individual, no longer allows up to fight with emotional content, loses its very human aspect, and ultimately makes for less effective fighters.


----------



## ammonihah99 (Aug 28, 2006)

Thanks for your replies. I hadn't thought of craft: _an art or trade requiring special skill, especially by hand._ It puts more emphasis on art and skill, but scientific knowledge is secondary. Seems to me more of a "how" and not "why".

Maybe this analogy can explain better how I feel: I am a graphic designer (not graphic artist) and a lot of what I do can certainly be classified as creative, but I wouldn't claim any of it as art. On the other hand, in the graphic design realm there are many rules, and to a great extent is a very scientific profession. Different fonts at different sizes arranged in different manners create very different reactions, as will different colors, etc. It is our job to anticipate which reactions each combination will elicit.

The same rules apply here as they would in the martial arts arena namely_all movements (content) are judged on a scale of effectiveness in direct relation to their objective._ My objective is to relay the information to the subject as impactful, quickly and effectively as possible. There is some play in how it is accomplished, but there are always strict parameters (rules) to comply with.

If the client asked why you did something a certain way, you bet your buttons I could explain in detail why each piece was placed in that position. The more experience I gain, the more effective I work, and the better I get. An important key to achieving the perfect design piece is to gather as much information as possible about the target subject.

This is how I view my experience with the martial arts. The client is your instructor, the job is the technique, the content or info to be organized are strikes, the subject is your attacker.

No analogy is perfect: The obvious difference is that if you give the same job to 10 different designers you will get 10 different designs. But should it be that way in the martial arts? If there is one objective, shouldn't there be one way to accomplish that objective _that is more effective than the rest?_ If there is, then it's our job as martial artists (or scientists) to discover and implement which and explain why.

Whenever I think of art I always think of paintings and ballet. They are things that are pleasing to the eye and definitely have an important place in our lives and society but as far as reality-based objectives go, they really can't compare to science. That's how I see the martial arts. I see reality based objectives, not a form that's cool to look at or inspiring. There's definitely some dang near awesome martial artists out there that I love watching. And some are good to watch as well as deadly forms of real self-defense, those I can see as art and science.

I guess what it comes down to is as far as martial arts go, I see self-defense as science and something cool to look at as an art. In that respect, they can be both.

Does that make sense?

Ammon


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 28, 2006)

ammonihah99 said:
			
		

> If there is one objective, shouldn't there be one way to accomplish that objective _that is more effective than the rest?_ If there is, then it's our job as martial artists (or scientists) to discover and implement which and explain why.


 
I appreciate where you are coming from, but with regard to this comment, in my opinion, absolutely not.

There are too many variables in the martial arts.  Simple body size, strength, flexibility, etc., as well as personal likes and dislikes will have a big impact on what works and doesn't work for one person, and that can be radically different from what works and doesn't work for others.

While some principles may be true across the board, how they are applied can vary tremendously and be equally effective, depending on who is doing it.

And another thing: as soon as you think you know the ONE best way to do something, someone else will catch on an develop a defense against it and nullify you every time.  Some degree of variety is important simply for its own sake, as well as to have tools to choose from depending on the situation.


----------



## kenpoworks (Aug 28, 2006)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> sure it can, but i certainly wouldn't relate such a thing to kenpo.
> 
> kenpo is a method of fighting. man's interpretation of tactics and methods in a physical conflict...overshadowed by politics, lineage questioning, and other non-pertinent BS. long live kenpo. good riddance to the art.
> 
> ...


----------



## Carol (Aug 28, 2006)

ammonihah99 said:
			
		

> Thanks for your replies. I hadn't thought of craft: _an art or trade requiring special skill, especially by hand._ It puts more emphasis on art and skill, but scientific knowledge is secondary. Seems to me more of a "how" and not "why".
> 
> Maybe this analogy can explain better how I feel: I am a graphic designer (not graphic artist) and a lot of what I do can certainly be classified as creative, but I wouldn't claim any of it as art. On the other hand, in the graphic design realm there are many rules, and to a great extent is a very scientific profession. Different fonts at different sizes arranged in different manners create very different reactions, as will different colors, etc. It is our job to anticipate which reactions each combination will elicit.
> 
> ...


 
I disagree on a few counts.  For one, there is more to art than visual enjoyment.  Music, for example, can be enjoyed with no visual input whatsoever.   Also, if simple visual stimulation was all that was needed to understand and enjoy art, there would likely be no demand for Art History classes.

Is music an art? I would most certainly say yes.

However, inside the art of music, there is a great deal of science.  A tenor sax has a different tonality than the smaller alto sax.  How the body of a stringed instrument resonates and projects the sounds of their strings vibrating depends on the shape of the body and the characteristics of the string.   Richness of tone is created by the symathietic vibrations adding  to the fundamental tonal frequency.  

There is also how the instrument is played.  How the timbre of the note can be changed according to how the note is struck.   A finger-plucked note from a violin sounds different from a note played with a horsehair bow.   A piano played hard with a lot of pressure on the keys sounds different than a piano played softly.  

Also in play are the hard sciences of acoustics (the science of sound) and psychoacoustics (the science of how humans hear sound).  An octave is either a doubling or halving of a given frequency.  The frequencies in the 12 notes of the western scale are seperated by precisely 2^1/12 Hertz.  

For centuries, musicians have incorporated different instruments, different note attacks, and different dynamics to add expression to their compositions and their performances.  

Music incorporates science and art in its expressions.  

Martial Arts do as well.  

Great topic!  :asian:


----------



## Josh Oakley (Aug 28, 2006)

I was talking with my stepfather, a microbiologist who has been plying his trade longer than I've been alive, and I'd like to build on what Carol is saying by adding that there is also a great deal of art in the practice of science. Scientific theories are meant to be broad enough to encompass a wide range of topics, but the application of different theories in scientific research and practice tends to vary greatly. science is itself an interpretive practice, dependant of the scientific method for gathering facts, but also depending on human brilliance to intrepret those facts, or in other words, _to express what they mean_, and apply those meanings in technology, medicine, biologgy, psychology, etc. My stepfather, who practiced shotokan in California for many years, and later practiced San Soo with me, says that the question of whether the martial art is science or art is somewhat irrelevant, because there is no hard and fast boundary between science and art; though a distinction can be made between the poles of each discipline, they are interdependant. Without science, there is no art; without art, there is no science.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Aug 28, 2006)

My stepfather and I just talked again and he posed an interesting question (and I'm wondering if Kenpodoc could affirm or deny): Is medicine a science or an art? He said that if medicine were simply a science, you could teach it to any tom, dick and harry, and they could do it with enough practice. However, that's not the case. The application of medicine absolutely requires an artistic mind with the science to back it up. He he said he finds it hard to call the martial art, or any human endeavor, for that matter, "just a science". He said the best way he could put it was that the concepts and theories are the science of the martial arts, whereas the art itself comes from the application. 

Any thoughts?


----------



## ammonihah99 (Aug 29, 2006)

Thanks again for those replies. I still think that all movements are judged on a scale of effectiveness in direct relation to their objective, but maybe there's not just one way of doing things, maybe we individually judge our own. Maybe that's our job as martial artists, to constantly be looking for more effective ways and passing them on to others.

I am seeing now how science and art are melded together and most definitely interdependent. I think I would agree that science is in the concepts and theories while the art is in the application. Seems like a good definition.

Maybe this goes back to the old stories of the scholar and warrior. As far as I understand (someone with more knowledge of history can do much better), the scholar had charge of the teaching of the art. He was revered for his skills as a teacher. If he his life was in danger, he was protected. The warrior simply learned from the scholar and fought.

I think we've all met people in our field that are more gifted "warriors" but have a difficult time teaching or analyzing concepts or theories, "scholars". It seems the most gifted have talents in both areas. Maybe that's the distinction between art and science I'm looking for here.

Science=Concepts=Scholar

Art=Application=Warrior

Thoughts?

Ammon


----------



## Josh Oakley (Aug 29, 2006)

Josh Oakley said:
			
		

> The martial arts, including Kempo, are moth science and art because they are both a systematic expression of truths as we best understand them, and that they are a creative and imaginative activity and means of expression of the individual within an established medium. As the martial arts are both a systematic evaluation of scientific principles as well as an interpretive excercise of each individual practicing them, they qualify as both an art and a science.
> 
> While I believe you have a valid complaint against the politics, lineage, etc. all of which have little if anything to do with either the science or the art, I believe you are in error to say good riddence to the art. If the martial way (I think this may be a better term, because this is our lifestyle) is not scientific, we may as well be doing ballroom dance, because we have sacrificed its relevance to combat. If Kempo is not artistic, however, it loses its ability to be tailored to the individual, no longer allows up to fight with emotional content, loses its very human aspect, and ultimately makes for less effective fighters.



Actually, scratch what I said. Ballroom dance is way too technical to call unscientific.


----------



## Mikael151 (Aug 29, 2006)

I've always wondered whether or not fighting could be considered a science.  Because to me, in science, if you employ a singular method, you should always get the same result.  In actual combat, the method employed can always be countered by an individual, thus taking science out of the equation and then it becomes "personal interpretation"; making it an art all over again.
I truly doubt anyone who says their art is a science, when the reaction of their opponent changes the method they employ.  
It's an art because combat is an ever evolving state.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Aug 30, 2006)

Mikael151 said:
			
		

> I've always wondered whether or not fighting could be considered a science. Because to me, in science, if you employ a singular method, you should always get the same result. In actual combat, the method employed can always be countered by an individual, thus taking science out of the equation and then it becomes "personal interpretation"; making it an art all over again.
> I truly doubt anyone who says their art is a science, when the reaction of their opponent changes the method they employ.
> It's an art because combat is an ever evolving state.



That's part of why some us are have goen with this: "In the martial way, science is in the theory, concepts, etc., and art is the application of that science ."

Though I'd like to add that there's nothing set in stone about science. Science evolves in all fields based on the best knowledge we have at the time. It's an ever evolving state as well. to say something is scientific is not stating its abosulte authority. Calling something scientific simply states the nature in which the conclusions were reached (through the scientific method).


----------



## IWishToLearn (Aug 31, 2006)

Mr. Hawkins' sig has an interesting interpretation of the "Art" side of the equation.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Sep 16, 2006)

IWishToLearn said:


> Mr. Hawkins' sig has an interesting interpretation of the "Art" side of the equation.



"Though I teach 'martial arts' there is a reason the word martial comes first, because that's what's most important. The 'art' is a secondary side-effect of proper form in fighting."

It is interesting, but at the same time, it doesn't hold true twhen breaking down the phrase itself. "Martial" doesn't come first because it is most important; it comes first because it is the adjective, the descriptor to the target noun. To import a counter example, in a phrase such as 'white Josh', we wouldn't say that me being white is as important as me being me. Nor would we say that me being me is a secondary side-effect of me being white.

Martial comes first because it describes the kind of art we practice. We are artists. _Martial _artists. We practice and improve our bodies and techniques beyond a level necessary for self-defense. It do more than that because martial effectiveness is, though necessary, not the whole of martial arts.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Sep 16, 2006)

Mikael151 said:


> I've always wondered whether or not fighting could be considered a science. Because to me, in science, if you employ a singular method, you should always get the same result. In actual combat, the method employed can always be countered by an individual, thus taking science out of the equation and then it becomes "personal interpretation"; making it an art all over again.
> I truly doubt anyone who says their art is a science, when the reaction of their opponent changes the method they employ.
> It's an art because combat is an ever evolving state.



Science is ever-evolving as well.


----------

