Complete art vs Finished art

[mrhnau]

I've often heard the term "Complete art", meaning, I assume, that it is well rounded, dealing with all aspects of fighting. Oddly enough, I've never heard of an art refering to itself as incomplete

anyways, I had a though the other day. Are arts today finished? That is to say, are they organic and growing? If an art is complete, do you feel a need for it to continue evolving? Does the growing end with the passing of the founders, and it is presumptious for us to think we can do better than past generations? Is this perhaps why there are so many branches, styles and self-proclaimed grandmasters of "invented" styles?

 

[exile]

I've often heard the term "Complete art", meaning, I assume, that it is well rounded, dealing with all aspects of fighting. Oddly enough, I've never heard of an art refering to itself as incomplete

anyways, I had a though the other day. Are arts today finished? That is to say, are they organic and growing? If an art is complete, do you feel a need for it to continue evolving? Does the grown end with the passing of the founders, and it is presumptious for us to think we can do better than past generations? Is this perhaps why there are so many branches, styles and self-proclaimed grandmasters of "invented" styles?

Wow, good question... so if I'm reading you right, you're suggesting that if, on the one hand, we are given arts to learn that are regarded as final and complete, and that, on the other hand, if there is a normal human tendency to want to adapt, extend, modify and in general innovate, then there will, on the third hand, be a tendency to create new styles? Becauses the desire to innovate can't be accomodated within arts that are presumed to have reached their final, crystallized state, so the only alternative is to coin new ones?

You could be right...

 

[Kwan Jang]

Though this idea usually does not come from the innovator who founded a TMA, it is fairly common for his later followers to consider the system perfect/flawless. By this reasoning, any deviation from the "perfect" model is by defintion inferior since no one of later generations could possibly have greater insight in any areas than the founder.

Even though this perspective does sound ridiculous (and very limiting to the ongoing evolution that should occur within a system) in fairness I should mention that many want change for it's own sake. Or will not have a full understanding of the "big picture" and they want to "throw the baby out with the bath water" and can often miss out on a lot of value for themselves as well as future generations. This can be a high price for impatience and ego.

 

[exile]

in fairness I should mention that many want change for it's own sake. Or will not have a full understanding of the "big picture" and they want to "throw the baby out with the bath water" and can often miss out on a lot of value for themselves as well as future generations. This can be a high price for impatience and ego.

Yes, that's true too.

The issue goes both ways and reminds me of something I once read in a biology textbook about the way organisms respond to environmental stresses---a descriptive generalization called Romer's rule, which states that `over time, an organism will change to just the extent that will keep it from having to change any further'. In other words, organic evolution proceeds by the smallest possible increments that will allow the lifeform in question to survive. That's just the way biology works, but it might be a good principle to follow in `updating' or `adapting to current conditions' any of our TMAs. Before you can change anything constructively, you need to know what it's doing there and whether you really want to change it; and if change is required, make only those modifications that are absolutely necessary. So the art isn't frozen and fossilized, but it isn't subject to distortion based on the whims of fashion or ego either...

 

[still learning]

Hello, From my understanding is a complete art teaches, standup fighting skills,ground skills,judo/throwing skills, may include various weapons too.

Each person in the same school will learn differently from each other...it is impossible to learn everthing (perfectly) in a life time. The learning never ends...because there will always be other ways to do the same thing,the counters and so on...

A complete art today means you can fight standing up, train for takedowns/or throws and ground fighting skills.

The only time you finish is when you DIE, or give up training -than you finish

There is NO end to training and learning the martial arts...ONE can always improve!

I am almost FINSH here? ......One can finish taking a bath....one can finish eating his food...one can finish making love? UM ....one can finish the whole quart of ice cream....one can finish training for the day.....Im' finish.......Aloha

 

[PeaceWarrior]

IMO, one cannot continue to evolve an art unless they have mastered the entire art as it should be learned, then to an extent they can modify and or add techniques to fit their style/experience, but still on a solid foundation.

I have to disagree with StillLearning, because I believe what youre talking about as a "complete art" means being a well rounded fighter, or just somebody who trains MMA. NOT SAYING THAT ISNT GOOD, but to me, a complete art is an art that contains all the necessary components for the TYPE of fighting/self defense that it is used for. For example, jujitsu would be considered a complete art for groundfighting, takedowns and throws. Wing Chun would be a complete art for stand up fighting. If you happened to learn both of them as complete arts, you would be a truly devistating opponent. However, most people nowadays do not have the patience to learn a complete art, so they cross train heavily. Nothing wrong with that, its just that they are not learning a complete art. Just my opinion.

peace!

Keith

 

[Xue Sheng]

When something stops growing it generally starts dieing.

A complete art or a complete martial artist, those are both being discussed here and they are 2 different things. One far wiser and far more experienced once explained it to me that I that a complete martial artist is one that understands kicking & punching, joint locking, throws and sweeps (could also translate to wrestling since the reference at the time was to Shuaijiao).

A complete martial art? Not sure there is one, but the jury is still out on that.

A finished martial art would be, at least to me, just that finished, done no longer useful. There have been thousands of them and they are gone now. For a style to continue it evolves and changes, but in order to continue as what it started out as it must and does evolve around a set of core principals. Wing Chun existed before Ip Man and Tai Chi existed before Yang Chengfu.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

who was it said 'no work of art is ever finished, merely abandoned?'. might have been hemmingway.

no art is ever finished, and likely never complete (new techniques and situations develop and arise daily).

 

[Flying Crane]

IMO, one cannot continue to evolve an art unless they have mastered the entire art as it should be learned...

Keith

Does anybody really ever do that? Even the founders/grandmasters? And who decides what this even means? Who creates the yardstick against which it is measured?

 

[Monadnock]

I think a distinction should be made between martial systems and martial arts. A system, generally has a beginning and an end with rules that it must obey to remain functional. An art, to me, seems to open up a lot more in the way of interpretation and expression, possibly bypassing the functional in exchange.

If we are talking about arts only, well, our local Picasso's will tell us that no art is ever finished. They may stop work on it for a little while, but their next idea will either be added or come out as a new piece. To encapsulate an art in one painting would be impossible. Even after a lifetime, a painter may never get across what he/she was trying to express, or their expression will change over time. Art is like life, fluid and ever changing.

This is why most schools you come across are not teaching martial arts. They may be some sort of sport, or self defense club, but there really isn't much "art" in whatever it is. At the lower levels of study, most schools will look alike. They have basics and techniques/kata. But whether or not they leave any interpretation at the higher levels, or teach any type of dynamic applications of the basics will be an indicator of how quick you will outgrow that particular school. For the most part, any depth remaining in martial art schools is pretty hard to find.

This is not to discredit any particular style of school. I have trained in several of each and would not trade the experiences for anything. But beware anyone telling you that their style is "it". I'm willing to bet that they do not have a clue what "it" really is.

 

[mrhnau]

Does anybody really ever do that? Even the founders/grandmasters? And who decides what this even means? Who creates the yardstick against which it is measured?

Thats kind of the whole gist of my question!

 

[PeaceWarrior]

This is why most schools you come across are not teaching martial arts. They may be some sort of sport, or self defense club, but there really isn't much "art" in whatever it is. At the lower levels of study, most schools will look alike. They have basics and techniques/kata. But whether or not they leave any interpretation at the higher levels, or teach any type of dynamic applications of the basics will be an indicator of how quick you will outgrow that particular school. For the most part, any depth remaining in martial art schools is pretty hard to find.

Thats why I love the school I train in, because our Sifu learned high level aspects of Wing Chun (among many other things) that I just dont think I could find anywhere else here in Kansas. I would consider my Sifu a "master" in the truest sense of the word.

I believe a Master is someone who has devoted his life in the pursuit of learning one art or system or whatever you want to call it. A master is someone who learned everything available about an art, who attained the highest levels of the art, and therefore the only ones who can push the art even further, or in some cases, simplify it even further without taking out anything necessary.

There is only so much you can acheive in one life, so we call those who have achieved the highest levels "master." Perhaps nobody will ever truly master anything in the truest sense of the word. Perfection can never be attained, only sought after. But I think it is the unrelenting pursuit of perfection that enables one to master any art.

Just IMO...

Peace

 

[Cirdan]

It is the artist that becomes complete by learning to apply the principles of the art and, perhaps even more important, he also learns when to break those principles. The art itself, like a formula, can never reflect every nuance of the real world without becomming infinitly complex.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I had a person that many consider a master of his art tell me (and several other people at the seminar) once that he never stopped thinking about MA. He also felt that you can never master it, meaning know it all. He also felt that you had to continue learning to gain more understanding.

He had trained Tai Chi, White Crane, Shaolin and Qigong for many years and I believe he was in his 50s at that time and was starting to learn Xingyi.

 

[Robert Lee]

We will never see a complete M/A of any kind. If you look at all the M/A arts out there. Just 1 real so called complete art Would over take all other arts. And would become the main art practiced. We as people come in all shapes and sizes as does the many arts. Then meny have much of the same tools that we learn to use. ROUNDED yes several can say this. If we keep looking at an M/A art and not our self we never grow. When you learn or I what we learned is ours no name we do it only how we can do it. Never meant to be set in granite for 1 way Each person in the M/A world has there own way just the art the learned helped guide them to where they were.

 

[trueaspirer]

I think most mas are always growing in some aspects, as the students almost invariably take their own understanding of the art with them, and as they go on to teach opthers, their knowledge is spread, and their students gain their own style, and so on and so forth.
I suppose you could say that while the art remains primarily the same, the style changes.