The art or the artist

[47MartialMan]

Should respect be earned, given, or demanded?

 

[mj-hi-yah]

Start a new thread on that one...:asian:

 

[47MartialMan]

So does the art make the student or the student makes the art/

 

[mj-hi-yah]

So does the art make the student or the student makes the art/

Actually, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this...:asian:

 

[47MartialMan]

In what fashion? per what would be my answer?

 

[Simon Curran]

My thoughts,
It is most definately the person and not the art which is the determining factor, Iknow people who have never studied any form of martial art and are still capable of looking after themselves, just take a look at violent offenders in a prison, how many of them are martial artists? But they still have the ability to use violence to their advantage

 

[47MartialMan]

But the art is the lure of the person. If there is a sour instructor, then there will be the same students

 

[Simon Curran]

Whilst I agree with you on that, it still isn't a gaurantee the system is the clincher, and not the individual practitioner

 

[47MartialMan]

So, without the art, there can be no practitioner? Or without the practitioner there can be no art?

 

[safeeagle]

All good thoughts. I do believe that certain martial styles are more adapted to different abilities. That's why it's important to find a style that works for you. But there is also this what I call a "bullet proof" attitude that prevails in a lot of studios. People believe that everything they are taught is golden and they can now take on the world. It seems you have a humble attitude. Your thoughts seem to be a sign of maturity. Transfering from the studio to the street. That is the ultimate thought. A thought we all wonder about as Martial Artist. Personally as a Master i've never had to put in play. Lucky for me.

 

[47MartialMan]

I have been in and seen too many street situations. I had lived in a city that had these at every turn.

 

[Simon Curran]

So, without the art, there can be no practitioner? Or without the practitioner there can be no art?

I would have to say that both are true (in my opinion)

 

[dubljay]

Any art can give you the tools you need to defend yourself. It is up to the practitioner to make the choice to defend themselves or not. I have seen those who have been in martial arts for several years either caught completely off guard and had no chance, or simply did not fight back. Don't believe for a minute that a person who studies a certain style is going to be even 25 percent predictable in the way they fight. I have seen many TKD students win tournaments simply because their opponent assumed all they would do was kick. Each person really practices their own version of the art that they study. I study EPAK, I learned the exact same self defense techniques as everyone else in my school yet we all do them slightly different. Each of us has different strengths and weaknesses. On one technique I may be able to flow and have great power where another person may not. In contrast I may have great difficulty with some techniques where others can execute it with powerful and fluid movements. The techniques are exactly the same in the blocks and strikes; however they are as different as black and white when two different people execute them.


Just my opinion

-Josh

 

[Brother John]

It's the Heart of the artist, not the Art of the artist...that matters the most.
Training is preparation. Some systems are more realistic/pragmatic/logical and have a more well rounded approach to preparing someone...
but preparation isn't a guarantee..it's an edge.

Your Brother
John

 

[47MartialMan]

I would have to say that both are true (in my opinion)

Like MILES had said "Hopefully, this won't degenerate into a "chicken before the egg" discussion"

However, could it be considered as the art was developed before there was the student. The need for the art was examined first. Then the practice of it, from student particpation, came second.



I also like this:
It's the Heart of the artist, not the Art of the artist...that matters the most.
Training is preparation. Some systems are more realistic/pragmatic/logical and have a more well rounded approach to preparing someone...
but preparation isn't a guarantee..it's an edge.

 

[Simon Curran]

Like MILES had said "Hopefully, this won't degenerate into a "chicken before the egg" discussion"

However, could it be considered as the art was developed before there was the student. The need for the art was examined first. Then the practice of it, from student particpation, came second.



I also like this:
It's the Heart of the artist, not the Art of the artist...that matters the most.
Training is preparation. Some systems are more realistic/pragmatic/logical and have a more well rounded approach to preparing someone...
but preparation isn't a guarantee..it's an edge.

Once again, I think that we are agreeing, but meanwhile slightly dis-agreeing, unless we believe that the originators of the martial arts learned by divine intervention, at some point personal ability must have been an issue...

 

[Brother John]

could it be considered as the art was developed before there was the student. The need for the art was examined first. Then the practice of it, from student particpation, came second. [/i]

True, this does get to be a 'Chicken/Egg' discussion...but those have their place too.

I don't think that this is the case. I think that the first "Student" of an art or system IS it's creator. That there was a need in their life or in their environment that helped shape their study of and subsequent creation of a 'Martial' way.
To have an art before there is a student is to have the cart before the horse. It would be like having a cake before there was a cheff.

My opinion...
The only thing I'm a master of.

Your Brother
John

 

[47MartialMan]

Just thought I throw out something to ponder

 

[Brother John]

Just thought I throw out something to ponder

Yes-Yes!!!
I likes ponderanceses....

artyon:
Your Brother
John

 

[Jerry]

The answer to the question is "yes".