Eclectic art forms?

[sojobow]

Originally posted in another section. Thinking it may be more appropriate here so forgive the duplication.

From what I can see, 21st Century martial arts (some TKD, JKD, Kempo, etc..) are actually heterogeneous art forms in that they are developed by:
1 : selecting what appears to be best in various doctrines, methods, or styles
2 : composed of elements drawn from various sources; (dictionary)
Without getting into the "my style is better than yours or your style - and you - aren't legit because you "stole" all of your techniques," are there any drawbacks you can see in these modern eclectic martial arts?

 

[Zepp]

Drawbacks? Nah, I don't see any drawbacks. Many kinds of music can be said to have eclectic origins. Does jazz music have any drawbacks just becuase of how it came to be?

I look at the creation of arts like the ones you've listed as part of cultural evolution. And they're still evolving today.

 

[FearlessFreep]

I think one possible drawback is that of not fully understanding the principles that are behind a particular MA and how it came to be, and how to apply those principles in various situations.

Sometimes I hear, or read, someone say "A is good for X but not for Y so I also incorporate B to get Y" and somewhere else someone saying "A can be used for Y like so.." and it makes me think that the first person really didn't have a full grasp of "A" in the first place.

While the forward development of an art is good because no art is perfect, I think great care should be taken that you don't go from A to A+B because of perceived weakness in A, unless you're really sure that A is indeed weak in that area.

Does jazz music have any drawbacks just becuase of how it came to be?

Ironic example

Most of what is considered modern jazz today, at least in 'popular' circles, is really structurally closer to pop..instrumental pop. A lot of it borrows some surface simularities to jazz, but the fundamentals are not really the same and the fundamentals of modern jazz are more related to pop/rock than they are to the jazz that came before them. So in a lot of ways, jazz has grown in a direction that it has forgotten it's principles and, as a result, doesn't have much of what earlier generations had. This doesn't mean thatm to the casual listener, it's not still enjoyable as something to listen to, but to the musician and the serious student, it's missing a lot.

 

[Zepp]

Most of what is considered modern jazz today, at least in 'popular' circles, is really structurally closer to pop..instrumental pop. A lot of it borrows some surface simularities to jazz, but the fundamentals are not really the same and the fundamentals of modern jazz are more related to pop/rock than they are to the jazz that came before them. So in a lot of ways, jazz has grown in a direction that it has forgotten it's principles and, as a result, doesn't have much of what earlier generations had. This doesn't mean thatm to the casual listener, it's not still enjoyable as something to listen to, but to the musician and the serious student, it's missing a lot.

You're right. I actually wasn't considering "modern jazz," mostly because I don't care for it.

Ok, let me revise my earlier post. There can be drawbacks to these kinds of of arts if they are taught without teaching the underlying principles.

 

[Adept]

Sometimes I hear, or read, someone say "A is good for X but not for Y so I also incorporate B to get Y" and somewhere else someone saying "A can be used for Y like so.." and it makes me think that the first person really didn't have a full grasp of "A" in the first place.

It depends. Sometimes, the second person is trying to justify or 'play up' their own art, and try to make it seem more practical than it is. Sometimes they are right.

It is not so much a question of if the 'art' can be used for Y, but if anything the artist knows can be used for Y. If the artist sees a hole in his training, then he should take steps to fill it. Whether he fills it with something from his 'main' style, or another style, is completely irrelevant.

Take what works and leave the rest. This is a fantastic ideal, and (AFAIC) the only way to get the most out of your MA experience. However, it is crucial that you are competent enough to KNOW what works and what doesn't, before you dis-regard more traditional training. Take what works is a philosophy that should not be introduced until a student has a solid base of knowledge and skills.

 

[MichiganTKD]

Actually, Tae Kwon Do as we know did not come about because someone or people consciously decided to combine Korean kicking with Karate and Kung Fu. It came about due to the formation of the KTA, which brought together the major kwans as a unification measure. Previously, the kwans engaged in active conflict with each other for political power. Each kwan was influenced by Korean, Japanese, and Chinese styles, and brought those to the unification table. But it was not a conscious process.