Mastering An Art

[MJS]

This is something that we hear all the time. Its usually asked in the form of a question, "How long does it take to master this art?" to which the answer is typically, "A lifetime." I usually hear this come up when the subject of cross training comes up. People usually say, "How can you focus on 1 or 2 more arts, when it takes so long to master your original art?"

This is an interesting question, because even after all of the time I've spent doing Kenpo, I still learn things when I work with my teachers. No, I'm not talking about a new technique or kata, but subtle things, such as a stance adjustment, body alignment, etc. One of the last times I was going thru techs., one of the other black belts that was working with us, made a slight adjustment to my body position and the tech was suddenly night and day.

So, if we look at it like that, then yes, it could take a lifetime. So, if thats the case, how could one be expected to be any good at anything else? Add in BJJ classes to your original art....how can you devote the time?

For myself, I view it like this: I'm in no rush to master anything. IMHO, mastering something takes time and lots of it. But each and every time you train, you're getting that much better. I added in Arnis and BJJ to my training, although I'm not as active with the BJJ currently, but I am with the Arnis. I've reached BB level in that art, and still train it. Every time I train, I am training something specific. In other words, during my lessons, I try to pick 1 or 2 things, and focus on those for the lesson, rather than flit back and forth between 10 different things.

Looking at this another way, if it supposedly takes a lifetime to learn an art, then technically, it could take a lifetime to master one particular part of an art. Kata...to really get good at kata, and I dont just mean being able to perform with power, but to really understand it, well, as I said, that could take quite some time. But we still devote time to not only learning the kata, but also the stances, the self defense techniques, the punches, kicks, blocks, etc. So really, IMO, its not going to be that much different, if 1 or 2 more arts were added in. Sure, there will be a slight difference because now you're devoting time to 2-3 things, rather than 1, but I think you can see the point I'm trying to make.

So, what are your thoughts on mastering an art? Do you feel that one has to stay devoted to one thing and one thing only, or is it possible to train at least 1 other thing, train on a regular basis, and always strive to get better?

 

[xJOHNx]

Always strive to get better. If it is in 1 art or 2 or 3...

The minute you think you've mastered something is the moment you placed a limit on your own ability.

For instance, in 40 years I'll be less muscular (hope not) and less flexible. If I'm a master by then, how will my mastership help me when I'm physically no more the man I was when I became a master? Not a penny.

I'm pro constant evolution! And I could add a witty Bruce Lee quote to back me up, but can't think of the specific one at the moment.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

So, what are your thoughts on mastering an art? Do you feel that one has to stay devoted to one thing and one thing only, or is it possible to train at least 1 other thing, train on a regular basis, and always strive to get better?

Most of the people we know as historic figures who originated traditional styles taught today were and are regarded as 'masters'. From what I have read, most of them trained in more than one system and produced a fusion which they felt was more effective than what they themselves had been taught. In this way, it would seem that one must be more than a journeyman with more than one style to be acknowledged as a 'master' of one's own creation.

However, as you said, I personally do not see mastery as a destination but a goal. I will most likely never master any martial art. I started too late in life, and my body is simply not capable of some of the flexibility and speed required, no matter what sort of level of physical conditioning I manage to attain. That's OK with me. I intend to pursue mastery, but I realize full well that I will never reach it.

To me, a master is someone can learn no more from others in a given tradition, but who understands what they know to the level that they can instantly apply it to new circumstances and invent. Like a master jazz musician who can improvise upon a theme because he has mastered his instrument and the music he plays. He can make it do new things because he understands all that it is capable of.

I suspect that many today see 'mastery' as 1st Dan black belt or the equivalent, instead of seeing 'black belt' level as merely being the equivalent of a college graduate who has not yet learned about life outside school or advanced to post-graduate education. Things are just beginning, not ending.

I believe with time and effort, I may achieve black belt level in Isshin-Ryu. I am in no hurry, but I take my training seriously. I intend to learn other styles along the way, particularly judo, to fill some gaps in my abilities as I perceive them. However, no matter how far I rise in rank in Isshin-Ryu, I do not think I will achieve mastery. That's OK.

 

[Omar B]

The word master has always been tricky with me. The learning process never ends until an individual dies so at what point does the distinction "master" really apply.

 

[seasoned]

When I started my journey in martial arts, the name master was a name that pertained to those few greats, that were the forerunners. Dedicated practitioners that were held in awe by those that had the good fortune to know them, and train under them. It is hard to add to what has already been said, so I will just join in with their thoughts. Mastery is an on going process of learning and exploring, in ones given art. Even these masters of old, did not consider themselves masters. So who could claim this lofty title, in this day and age??

 

[just2kicku]

I think that in this day and age, most will never master an art. They may be good and well proficient in it, but will never "master" it. As I've been taught, it takes a lifetime to master that one art. Most are not even considered masters till long after their gone.

I think there's too much dabbling in other things to actually master any of them. You can get damn good, but I don't believe master. Hell, even Sijo said he wasn't a master.
Ithink what we get today are a bunch of jack of all trades, master of none. But, this is just my opinion.

 

[Tames D]

I think the title of "Master" is WAY overused and usually unqualified.

 

[Tames D]

Most are not even considered masters till long after their gone.

Absolutely. There should be a requirement of being dead for 5 years before the title of Master can be bestowed

. But, of course, that would piss alot of people off

.

 

[Tensei85]

I think the title of "Master" is WAY overused and usually unqualified.

Definitely agreed,
I've always stated I'm a 17 year beginner & in the next 17 years I'll still be a beginner, the 17 years after that I'll probably still be a beginner. Haha, it helps with the ego boost that most receive over time, but I'll always view myself as a Student 1st & foremost. As far as Mastery, can you master Physics well maybe a PhD or related degree in a specific field but when Science continues to evolve as does Martial Arts how can one obtain a quote on quote Mastery?

Just my opinions, obviously comparing "apples to oranges" but worth a thought.

 

[Chris Parker]

Hi,

I'm going to come at this from a different angle. MJS asked about achieving mastery in an art, particularly in relation to cross training (if 1 art takes a lifetime, what happens when other training takes a portion of yourtime and energy?), to which Bill brought up the old Masters who trained in a variety of arts in order to generate their new arts (Ueshiba creating Aikido from Daito Ryu, Yagyu Shinkage Ryu, and more, Kano creating Judo from Tenshin Shinyo Ryu, Kito Ryu and more etc). And the majority of posts here are dealing with mastery in this fashion, mastery of a single system. I'd like to offer an alternate with the examples provided.

To me, mastery is not necessarily related to a single branch of knowledge, although it certainly can be. However, in the history of creative endeavours, be they music, art, or martial systems, the mastery is more often to do with the way an individual incorporates the particular avenue into their lives. In this way, mastery can be understood as total commitment to a pursuit to the degree that it comes to affect every part of your life. Demonstrable skill in the area is a given, and comes as a result of the commitment (and, for the record, only with a high level of skill does it truly have an effect on your life in this way. Training can influence your life from day one, but having a deep effect from mastery is something different. The old saying is that a person who has achieved mastery of an art reveals it in their every action, and that is what we are getting at here).

With the individuals mentioned, Kano and Ueshiba, as well as others, these men achieved mastery of martial arts, which was expressed in their personal philosophies of Judo and Aikido respectively.

With this take on mastery, cross training can hinder in that you get conflicting messages from different arts with different philosophies and strategic tactics, and therefore different concepts of success and how to achieve it. However, it can assist by enabling you to get closer to your own personal understanding of what martial arts are to you, and your own personal mastery of such. So in the end, it doesn't necessarily help or hurt in terms of mastery. You don't actually master Aikido, per se, but rather master your body and master martial conflict and arts through the vehicle of Aikido. At this point, everything you do is Aikido, and Aikido is everything you do. This is like a painter studying the forms of painting, the brush strokes, the various paints, oils and water colours, and then expressing your own art through the vehicle of an empty canvas, adorned with your touches and strokes, giving a shape to unconscious expression. With the martial arts it is the same. The particular systems are just the vehicles, the ways of travelling down the path, or road (michi, or do for the Japanese practitioners...) towards mastery of self in this field.

Hope that made some sense, actually... not easy to find the words I wanted there....

 

[sgtmac_46]

That is why I agree with Bruce Lee........my job isn't to 'Master' someone else's 'Way'..........my job is to master my own interpretation of it.

Those who attempt to master a codified art solely are attempting to master someone else's individual definition of perfection..........but even if that 'Way' were perfect........it would still only be perfect for the individual that developed it, not for me......I am not them, I am not their size, their shape, I do not have their strengths and weaknesses.

Those who suggest that we should not pursue 'Cross training' because it distracts us from pursuing their 'Way' miss the point entirely. As for perfection, it would seem to be a journey, not a destination.

 

[Chris Parker]

I think the title of "Master" is WAY overused and usually unqualified.

I've been thinking about this, and frankly, I think most people are simply over-estimating what the term master or mastery means. You can get a Masters degree in a number of years from a college or university, in martial arts it's the same thing. The old classical method in Japanese systems is Menkyo Kaiden, a licence of complete transmission of an art. Those who achieved this could be considered to have "mastered" the art in question.

By over-estimating what you percieve mastery to be (you can only achieve it after death!), you are setting up mastery as an impossible target. That's okay, but it's not realistic. Mastery is a realistic ideal and goal, the same way a Masters degree in any subject is a realistic ideal. Does it mean that everyone can achieve it? No. Will every university student achieve a Masters degree? No. It's really the same thing. Now, if you want an impossible achievement to aim for as motivation (I certainly do), aim for perfection. But mastery is not perfection, and I feel that many here are equating the two.

 

[dbell]

Using the old Menkyo system of the Japanese systems, mastery to me is when a person has learned what that art has within it to a point that they can pass it on to others. Take that to the belting system of 3rd Dan (Japanese) on being able to open their own school (until recent years when people figured they could and should do so at 1st Dan) in the name of the original school, and at 5th Dan being able to open in their own name. 5th Dan was the "Master Level" or Menkyo Kaiden level for Japan (Korea uses 4th Dan for "Master Level").

Mastery is about learning the complete system and how to pass it on to others, in form, and how to work with them on making that art work for them in their body and abilities. It also means you have made that art work for you in your body and your abilities.

Adding other systems to your training, if implemented at the right time in your training, can be a help in learning mastery of your initial art. I do not recommend adding a new art to your training until you have reached some level of understanding with your initial art, and that is based on your Instructors feedback and your abilities with your initial art.

I have seen senior students (I consider myself a senior student in Kendo, in which I have been training in for 38+ years and have been issued a 10th Dan/Head of Family for a "family system" of Kendo, I mean 3rd Dan on up as being Senior Student) that train in only one art, become very proficient in it, and when they "fight" someone of another art, not do so well, because they were unable to adapt to what was coming at them. I have seen senior students that have reached senior student status in two or more arts do better than ones in single arts.

That said, I have seen the inverse as well, single art senior students doing well against any "takers", and multiple art students doing poorly.

I think it is up to the learning abilities of the student and their instructors as to what is the best policy for each person. Some can "master" more than one art, some should not try.

If you define a "Master" of an art as someone that knows everything there can be known about an art or system, there is NO ONE IN HISTORY that has reached that level, including the person(s) that created the art. Arts evolve as the Creator learns more about the body, or movement, or life in general. Arts evolve as politics change, they evolve as a person grows in strength or drops in strength, as the creator finds new things in life, etc.

If you define a "Master" of an art as someone that knows all the moves, forms, etc. can teach them to others, can see when to adjust the moves/forms/etc. for each person learning them, and knows the intent of the art as created by the Creator of that art, I would say that person is the one that the Creator (or his/her appointed people) have issued the equivalent of a Menkyo Kaiden (Japanese systems) or in "traditional" (used loosely as the belting system is only 80ish years old) belting of 5th Dan or higher (Japanese systems, 4th Dan for Korean systems in most cases).

 

[sgtmac_46]

I've been thinking about this, and frankly, I think most people are simply over-estimating what the term master or mastery means. You can get a Masters degree in a number of years from a college or university, in martial arts it's the same thing. The old classical method in Japanese systems is Menkyo Kaiden, a licence of complete transmission of an art. Those who achieved this could be considered to have "mastered" the art in question.

By over-estimating what you percieve mastery to be (you can only achieve it after death!), you are setting up mastery as an impossible target. That's okay, but it's not realistic. Mastery is a realistic ideal and goal, the same way a Masters degree in any subject is a realistic ideal. Does it mean that everyone can achieve it? No. Will every university student achieve a Masters degree? No. It's really the same thing. Now, if you want an impossible achievement to aim for as motivation (I certainly do), aim for perfection. But mastery is not perfection, and I feel that many here are equating the two.

I disagree......Mastery is, for all intense and purposes, perfection. If one believes one has mastered ANYTHING, then one is deluding oneself. One only finds when they achieve what they believe to be mastery.........that all they've done is found more levels to aspire to before they can consider any area 'mastered'.

But at that point the argument deteriorates in to semantics.

 

[ap Oweyn]

So, what are your thoughts on mastering an art? Do you feel that one has to stay devoted to one thing and one thing only, or is it possible to train at least 1 other thing, train on a regular basis, and always strive to get better?

Honestly, I've never heard a very compelling definition of "mastering an art." I know that sounds argumentative. But seriously, does it mean that you can apply that art to resolve every situation? Surely mastery lies in application. But how many "masters" can really be said to have applied their art in so broad a range of situations?

I think the gap between application and practice is so vast in martial arts (due to the non-regrettable fact that we rarely use them in real life-or-death situations) that it's hard to gauge mastery. If someone is a chess master, for instance, then I'd expect a certain level of performance within the easily established parameters of a game of chess. Martial arts' parameters aren't nearly that easily established. I can even see the term applied to a sportive outlet for a martial art. Because, again, there are clear parameters by which to judge mastery. But the more general use of the term...

I don't know. I used to think that the taekwondo practice of calling 4th degree BBs and above "master" was kinda ludicrous. But really, it's a specific achievement reached by specific standards. So, while I wouldn't have chosen that term myself, at least it carries a specific meaning.

I'll use the terms associated with a particular school out of deference to that group. But for my own money, I'd rather dispense with the term. I'm not terribly keen on titles anyway.


Stuart

 

[terryl965]

Mike I am sure you already know this but can one truely ever Master anything in today world? I ask this because as you know every Art is always changing and growing so how can one Master what is always evolving? To me a true Master of anything is one that continues to grow and look into new ways of developing their style or job.

 

[KELLYG]

Mastering an art, interesting question.
I personally think that a beginning student is monkey see monkey do. They are shown an technique and asked to repeat it back to the instructor as shown.
Then I think that after a while the underlying principles, or real use, of the techniques are learned. This would be an advanced student up to and including black belt.
At black belt there should be a basic understanding of all techniques in your art, and start to develop a deeper understanding of how you as a practitioner can use the tools that you have been given to you. This would be 2nd dan and higher.
Mastery comes when you know what the techniques are how to use them and you make them your own. At this point you are not learning how to do a round house kick but how to make it better, then to make it better,etc.

 

[Em MacIntosh]

You've mastered an ART when you are the paragon of it and no one (except yourself and nature) can teach you any more about it. A menkyo kaiden is a good example of this..."there may be more to learn but you'll have to teach it to yourself".
Chances are few will be able to think of improvements you haven't already thought of or you have good reasons not to include suggested improvements.

 

[Telfer]

The cellist Pablo Casals was once asked why he bothered to keep practicing into his 80s?

"Well...I'm starting to notice some improvement."

 

[MJS]

I think there's too much dabbling in other things to actually master any of them. You can get damn good, but I don't believe master. Hell, even Sijo said he wasn't a master.

So your feelings are that just 1 art should be focused on?

Ithink what we get today are a bunch of jack of all trades, master of none. But, this is just my opinion.

In your opinion, is this a good or bad thing?