Can Martial Arts be Beautiful?

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.
 
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
 
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.

Yes, it can be beautiful.

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

:~)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.



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
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
 
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
 
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
 
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!
 
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
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
 
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]   [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*



 
*Slides in*

beau·ty

   [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*





who was that masked man?
 
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.

*Slides in*

beau·ty

   [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).


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


a beautiful person, especially a woman.


A person who has the objective attribute in question.


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
 
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.
 
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
 
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
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?

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
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.


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.


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 :)


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 :)


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.
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.


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.


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 :)


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 :)


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.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
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?



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!
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 :D 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.




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 :)



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.
 
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
 
Back
Top