Is it still a martial art if...

[Makalakumu]

Originally posted by Black Bear
Art is simply “to do things well”. It is graceful execution. Martial art is gracefully executing a guy.

Art is more then just "doing things well." Art has meaning. Art is Do. There is nothing graceful in executing a guy. Death is death. I could do it with my pistol. Some arts are like the pistol. Very little Do and very much pull the trigger. Others have little death and lots of Do. The continuum exists. I would say my art is about 50/50.

 

[Black Bear]

upnorthkyosa, there is no dichotomy between a pistol and art. A pistol is a thing. Art is process. There is pistolcraft. Pistolcraft, excellently done, is an art. Moving one step away from pistols, art is the Canadian snipers in Afghanistan who have confirmed kills at 5km. 5 KM!!! Imagine standing with your buddy, no one else around for miles, and suddenly he drops dead with a bloody hole in his chest. You'd think that God Himself flicked him with His Finger. That is art. It is the apex of skill where you have such mastery over the fundamentals that you have the opportunity to be creative in the exercise of your skill. Art is the perfect attack on the net in a sports game. When you're learning to draw, you're not doing art. You learn to draw, and learn, and learn, and then you can create art.

As Robert Henri says, art is not some extra, outside thing. It is To Do Things Well.

7starmantis, your tongue-in-cheek reference to canonizing something as an art is most appropriate, and leads me to the whole point of my question. I don't canonize ANYTHING as an art. I personally adopt the broadest definition possible. I say if people want to call it a martial art, then sure. If some two-bit, five-year, 20-year-old TKD black belt starts up a McDojang and says he teaches martial arts, I smile and go "that's great". If some guy wants to call hockey or knitting a martial art, I smile and go "sure". It's a word. People are idiots, why fight it? It's a word. Words are for communication. If most people use it in an absurd, idiotic manner, I'll use it the same way as the idiots so I can talk to the idiots.

Martial arts is just a word. What matters is what you do. In a latte conversation, I might say something like, "well, martial arts, if you look at the words, has to do with war. So what people do in the military, the combat guys, at the high levels where people have high levels of skill and mastery over their tradecraft, that's what martial art really IS." Like the Canadian snipers. But that's just latte talk. I don't really mean it and I'd never get into a debate over it.

 

[Black Bear]

Looking over this thread, I think PAUL's definition is probably most correct. Notwithstanding, I hold to my uberpragmatic "yeah sure, anything you want to call a martial art :shrug:" definition.

 

[KenpoTess]

This may or may not be relevant.. but here's link to a thread I started way back on Art in Martial Arts, Tis also what I did my black belt thesis on.

Tess


Link Here

 

[Black Bear]

It is certainly relevant. Very interesting.

 

[Makalakumu]

Originally posted by Black Bear
upnorthkyosa, there is no dichotomy between a pistol and art. A pistol is a thing. Art is process.

A technique with no meaning is a thing. A technique executed well is still a thing. A technique executed well with intent and meaning is Art. It is Do. I tend to think of this dichotomy as being the difference between Jutsu and Do. One is the technique, one is the way. Styles swing on this continuum.

 

[Black Bear]

I have nothing to remark on that beyond what I have already said. Except, I suppose, the fact that I can't buy for a second that this purported dichotomy between "martial" and "art" is somehow analogous to that between "jutsu" and "do". In fact, remember that it is "jutsu" that means art, and is generally taken to correspond to the more practical manifestations of a "martial art", rather than "artsy" stuff.

Another dichotomy was that which Vunak made between training for "self-preservation" and "self-perfection". In the way that he used the terms, "self-perfection" still referred to things that were combat-effective--just more difficult and requiring a higher degree of skill, ergo "artistry".

 

[Black Bear]

About my wishy-washy, inclusive definition:

Suppose we were extremely rigorous about this whole thing, and were only willing to call things martial arts if they were really combat-effective.

Then we could say with total confidence when asked, that "ALL martial arts are combat effective". Because denotatively, by definition, they really all are!

Then some layperson would say, "but what about Brand X martial art? I heard it's not effective on the street."

Our response, of course, would be: "Oh, Brand X isn't a martial art!"

 

[7starmantis]

Effective is just very subjective. Whats effective to you may not be to me. Whats effective in one situation may be completely useless in another.

7sm

 

[Black Bear]

I disagree. Effectiveness is not a matter of opinion, but rather an empirical matter.

I am talking about effectiveness in fighting. A real fight means that you would like to quit but cannot. If it is not effective across a range of fighting situations (ie. it is versatile and robust) then it is not effective.

This definition allows room for individual variation and art-to-individual interaction. If it works well for a reasonable proportion of the population then it works.

None of these qualifications means that effectiveness has no meaning or is not a measurable quantity.

 

[lvwhitebir]

Originally posted by 7starmantis
Effective is just very subjective. Whats effective to you may not be to me. Whats effective in one situation may be completely useless in another.

7sm

I agree that it's subjective. If it was objective we wouldn't be having this discussion. For some a punch won't work in a real situation (long fingernails on a woman means she can't form a proper fist or some people easily break their hands with a punch). For others it will. That makes the effectiveness of a punch subjective because it won't be effective all the time. Grappling is effective under many circumstances (police control for one) but is ineffective against a gang fight. Does that mean grappling is ineffective?

WhiteBirch

 

[Black Bear]

lvwhitebir, you are grossly confusing two entirely separate issues.

Subjectivity means that something is a matter of opinion, that there is no objective truth with respect to it. Surf or ski, burger or pizza. Italian rock opera or fusion jazz. Matters of taste or preference are subjective.

Things like the suitability of punching or grappling are matters of situational appropriateness or suitability for the individual but remain empirical, objective realities. They can be tested scientifically, even if there are individual differences that mediate decisions based on that science.

For instance, take the practice of clinical nutrition.

1) There are different OBJECTIVES: weight gain, weight control, longevity, strength and endurance, adaptation to a medical condition, adaptation to a spiritual observance such as veganism, etc.

2) There are INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES: People respond differently to different foods, for instance for me, phenylalanine is completely inoccuous. For persons with certain congenital conditions who cannot metabolize it, it's very dangerous. Some people can't take gluten, or lactose, or whatever else. Some people taste the bitterness of certain vegetables (such as Brussel sprouts) far more strongly than others, it's genetic. Not me, I love them, they're like eating candy.

3) There are UNKNOWNS: no one claims to know all there is to know about every substance a person can ingest, all the interactions and synergies, etc. We know a lot, and we don't know a lot. So some judgement calls have to be made.

But no one would for a moment suggest that those three qualifications mean that clinical nutrition is subjective, that it is a matter of opinion, that eating anything is just as good as anything else. Sure, you could take two kinds of foods and say that one isn't unequivocally better for you than another. But you can say that one does one thing and the other does another, and that they are both a hell of a lot better than a big mac and fries. That is an objective truth. Meanwhile, someone will point out that one big mac won't kill you. But that is also an objective truth, not a subjective one. It is an OBJECTIVE TRUTH that eating white rice is nutritionally identical to eating a bowl of candy, with the exception that it is far less cariogenic. Many cultural Chinese think that it's the staff of life--it's not. There's practically nothing in it but a single complex carb. Nutritional science TELLS us what's in it, and that it's not very nourishing. It doesn't matter that one billion people (and my grandmother) think otherwise. It's true. That's objective.

Indeed, what works in one case, for one person, may not in another set of circumstances. I'm not suggesting otherwise. But number one, this does not make it subjective. Number two, it should make us regard a more robust, resilient, and versatile approach as more effective than those that are not.

 

[tshadowchaser]

you may feel you punch hard and hurt me when you hit. I may feel you punch like a sissy and talk to much about how good you are
These are subjective.
heck a third party may fell we are crazy for punching each other.

Now if we messure the speed of the punch and how many psi it has we are entering a different area. However we still may disagree on what damage it will do to any one individual

Now the question is how dose this relate to the original question of the thread

 

[Black Bear]

We may disagree on the damage that it "may" do to a certain individual, but the amount of damage that occurs is an empirical fact. I don't see your point.

 

[Black Bear]

Originally posted by tshadowchaser Now the question is how dose this relate to the original question of the thread

The matter was raised whether something is a martial art if it is not effective in combat. Someone remarked that effectiveness is in fact subjective. I disagreed.

 

[Zepp]

Black Bear,

Sorry for jumping in late to the discussion, but I'd like to add brief comment on your observations of TKD, if I may. The "diluted" form of TKD is really only epidemic here in North America. I'm sure there are cases of diluted instruction in TKD in other countries as well, but in its home country, South Korea (because we just don't know what the deal is in North Korea), TKD is most definitely taught as a martial art.

As to whether or not a watered-down martial art is still a martial art, that's entirely a matter of perspective. If it is taught with the intention of having martial applications, personally, I just assume that the glass is half-full.

No, wait. Let me make one exception to that. Tae-bo is not a martial art.

 

[Black Bear]

Well yeah. In the middle east, including Israel, anything they teach is taught properly, combatively. In Eastern Europe it's been the same thing. There, I'm told, the most popular martial art is kyokushinkai karate.

In North Korea, the martial art is eating food. If you eat food, you can beat the tar out of the 90% of the population that doesn't.

 

[Black Bear]

Originally posted by tshadowchaser
you may feel you punch hard and hurt me when you hit. I may feel you punch like a sissy and talk to much about how good you are
These are subjective.
heck a third party may fell we are crazy for punching each other.

So what? The fact is that certain biomechanics reliably produce a harder hit than others. That is objective. That is central to martial arts. If you read the post containing the clinical nutrition example, then you can very well see that what you said has nothing to do with the point.

 

[Disco]

There are no "Martial Arts", only Martial Disciplines. According to the history merchants, the original concept was for unarmed combat. It would interesting to know when and how the term Martial Arts came about.

On a side note, ask any of the very senior (elder) statemen of any style, if they practice/study Martial Arts. More than likely you will receive the answer that - I am a student/teacher of GoNad-Itchy-Ryu (Example only). they will not use the term Martial Art. At least from all of my encounters, this has been the norm.

 

[fringe_dweller]

Question:

At what point should the Martial Art need to be considered "effective"? After six months? A year? 10 years?

Would you then say Aikido is not effective because it takes many years to become proficient? Or does it make Muay Thai more effective because you become proficient in less time?