There's something that your comments here reminded me of, a long while back. A couple of years ago I was watching that awful XMA special on Discovery Channel, and at one point, Matt Mullins makes a comment about how martial artists, like other artists, express their creativity by the `details' that they put into their work. And I remember thinking, no, he's parsing that phrase wrong. A high-energy physicist isn't a physicist who is `high energy', but someone who does high-energy physics: [high-energy physics]+ist. And in the same way, a martial artist isn't (necessarily) an artist whose artistry is martial, but rather someone who does martial arts: [martial art(s)]+ ist. The `art' part of the phrase `martial arts' doesn't come from the notion of capital-A Art, as in fine artswhat Michaelangelo or Bach did. It's a more general notion which also shows up in phrases like `Teach the arts of peace', or `Young working class girls in Victorian England learned useful domestic arts' and so onbasically, sets of skills, specialized knowledge or abilities. In my reading, I've encountered animal husbandry, stonemasonry and, in JRR Tolkien's usage, the `art of smoking pipeweed', among many other skills or practices, as instances of this usage.
So `martial artist', at least in terms of where the term comes from, means nothing other than one who practices, at some level of competence, the specialized skills that constitute some degree of knowledge of certain kinds of fighting systems. This is just what several other peple on this thread have been saying. You don't have to be an artist to be an MAist, just a competent craftsperson reasonably adept in the specialized skills of your style. Anything more is... well, extra, and personal.
Very well put, and I completely agree with that one. A martial artist is one that is at least reasonably prficient in a given skill or in our case- discipline(s) we study.