Thanks for that link. That was a well thought out essay which pretty much encapsulates my own feelings regarding the term martial art as being a craft or skill that, if raised to the highest levels, fully merits the term "art".
Thirty or so years back, right out of grad-school, my artwork (sculpture) involved mixed media (welded steel, cast metals, motorized kinetic elements, neon, large blocks of ice, propane torches, and so on) ...basically a lot of construction, process, and even performance. All in a presumptuous attempt to establish myself as "artist" of significance. Now I'm just a teacher and a potter. I have found that acquiring the skill to efficiently make and produce pottery that is both functional and beautiful requires a frame of mind and physical skills very akin to that of the martial artist.
With this in mind, I find that colloquial and sometimes derided term kung-fu (which the general public uses to describe traditional Chinese martial arts) is in fact quite apropos. Kung-fu, I'm told by native speakers of Cantonese, literally translates to "expertise resulting from hard-work" and implies simply a high level of skill or mastery of a trade. In this sense a carpenter, potter, smith, etc. whose personal skill and mastery reaches the highest level can be said to have kung-fu and can be referred to as "sifu" (師傅) or master. Isn't this what we all aspire to in our "martial arts"?
