Can Martial Arts be Beautiful?

[lklawson]

Basically, as I pointed out previously, beauty is a quality that causes a reaction of delight (for want of a better term) in a person when they apprehend that quality in another person or object. It is, therefore, objective. If it was subjective - that is residing in the subject - then it couldn't be a quality such as grace or charm that was pleasing.

Nope. It is subjective because that quality which causes the reaction of delight is potentially different for every viewer and frequently strongly influenced or even determined by "nurture."

Just because the "quality" continues to reside within that object doesn't mean "beauty" is objective but rather that the specific quality is objective. Beauty is the the subjective reaction of the individual to that quality.

People can disagree on, or even be wrong about, whether such a quality exists in a particular person or thing. (Indeed, disagreement between parties doesn't preclude knowledge about the subject at hand.) But that doesn't mean beauty itself is subjective, that is, it somehow resides in the person doing the apprehending rather than the thing that is apprehended or depends on their reaction to the thing being viewed.

Actually, yes it does. That's why they can honestly disagree.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[chrispillertkd]

And that is the crux of the problem. I'm contending that "beauty" is pretty much anything which, when viewed, elicits the emotion of pleasure or happiness.

Which is why beauty is objective. It resides in the object that you preceives and elicits a particular response from the person who apprehends it.

If you want to try to make it something more substantial than that and then link it to a universal, non-objective, truth, please go right ahead. You said that your study of the subject has lead you to believe that. I'm not dismissing your study, I'm just asking to see it. I might change my mind and agree with you.

I can't even procede if you don't agree that a characteristic in an object means something is objective. But do you see that? If not then the rest of the discussion is for not.

But I certainly won't unless you can present something more substantial than what appears to be "my definition of beauty is different."

It's not the definition of beauty that differs so far.

Pax,

Chris

 

[chrispillertkd]

Nope. It is subjective because that quality which causes the reaction of delight is potentially different for every viewer and frequently strongly influenced or even determined by "nurture."

The apprehension of beauty is done by perceiving the characteristic in another object or person. It is, therefore, objective. It's only subjective in the sense that it's quite possible that the subject (the person viewing the beautiful object) doesn't recognize the beauty in the first place.

Just because the "quality" continues to reside within that object doesn't mean "beauty" is objective but rather that the specific quality is objective.

Since beauty is the quality of the object being apprehended this is exactly what it means. Beauty is an objective quality.

Beauty is the the subjective reaction of the individual to that quality.

Here's the difference. You're defining beauty to mean a reaction someone feels. Which is, as far as I can tell, quite the opposite of what people generally mean by the term. You call a woman beautiful. You don't say you have a beautiful reaction to her. She is beautiful, you have a reaction of delight (or love, or what have you). But you don't have a beautiful reaction. You react to her beauty.

Actually, yes it does. That's why they can honestly disagree.

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. I mentioned disagreement not preclusing knowledge as well as beauty residing (or not ersiding) in the subject. I'm not really sure which of those things you refer to here (people disagreeing precluding knowledge or that disagreement meaning beauty is really somehow subjective).

Pax,

Chris

 

[Xue Sheng]

The style itself lends itself to a practice that would demonstrate what most of us I think regard as beautiful. I wonder though, is there ugly practice also in your style? I wonder is it a misonception that the beauty in Taijiquan is inherent in the forms when the reality is that the beauty is in the flow and skill of the practitioner do you think? Thank you again
.

The forms are pretty to watch and tuishou (push hands) can be beautiful as well in practice. However in application not so much, there is not a lot of beauty in a strike to teh head or a qinna lock to the viewer and in most cases to the one the lock is applied to. However when my taiji sifu locks me it is amazing. I never know it is coming until I am locked. I have had many others use Qinna on me over the years. one of those was Yang Jwing Ming, and I have always felt it coming and sometimes I can counter it and sometimes I cannot (With Yang Jwing Miing I could not) but I always felt it coming. With my Yang Taiji sifu I never felt it coming and when I asked him how he does it his only answer was "You lock yourself"

Another style I do, likely my favorite style, is Xingyiquan and looking at it you likely will not see something you would call beautiful but internally and based on its flexibility in application it is amazing and in its directness and its assumed simplicity it is a thing of beauty in my opinion. And for the record, another style I dabbled in, Wing Chun I feel is a thing of beauty as well for the very same reasons

 

[Cyriacus]

Thank you for your thoughts. And so what - if anything - would you in your opinion consider as beautiful MA practice? Thank you

You sometimes ask the most perfectly difficult question for Me to answer.
For Me, being impressed by sheer force and perceiving Beauty tend to blur a bit. Ill be more visually pleased by a group of people in identical black/white/red/whatever outfits doing Stance>Punch>Punch>Punch > Step Forward > Repeat, than people jumping and flipping around and whatnot.
For example, I cant sit through 30 seconds of this without becoming dreadfully uninterested.

But I can watch this through with a smile.

I think that best conveys My standpoint.

 

[Jenna]

The forms are pretty to watch and tuishou (push hands) can be beautiful as well in practice. However in application not so much, there is not a lot of beauty in a strike to teh head or a qinna lock to the viewer and in most cases to the one the lock is applied to. However when my taiji sifu locks me it is amazing. I never know it is coming until I am locked. I have had many others use Qinna on me over the years. one of those was Yang Jwing Ming, and I have always felt it coming and sometimes I can counter it and sometimes I cannot (With Yang Jwing Miing I could not) but I always felt it coming. With my Yang Taiji sifu I never felt it coming and when I asked him how he does it his only answer was "You lock yourself"

Another style I do, likely my favorite style, is Xingyiquan and looking at it you likely will not see something you would call beautiful but internally and based on its flexibility in application it is amazing and in its directness and its assumed simplicity it is a thing of beauty in my opinion. And for the record, another style I dabbled in, Wing Chun I feel is a thing of beauty as well for the very same reasons

And you perceive no beauty in the technical precision of those strikes or locks? It is performed with grace and with an element that makes you feel you are applying the lock to yourself (that is quite Aiki I think ) then is that not beautiful practice epitomised in fluent technique do you think?

I am interested in why you do not consider these styles to contain anything beautiful? Are you of the mind that the pure utility and function of these styles is incongruent with anything beautiful? I think this is an issue with certain arts. I think it is often an issue with the art that I practice too. The perception of beauty makes some feel there is no martial utility. Hmm.. I am interested in the disparity between how you view some practices within a style as attractive and others as utilitarian perhaps in a martial sense? Thank you again for your thoughts

You sometimes ask the most perfectly difficult question for Me to answer.
For Me, being impressed by sheer force and perceiving Beauty tend to blur a bit. Ill be more visually pleased by a group of people in identical black/white/red/whatever outfits doing Stance>Punch>Punch>Punch > Step Forward > Repeat, than people jumping and flipping around and whatnot.
For example, I cant sit through 30 seconds of this without becoming dreadfully uninterested.
[/video]
But I can watch this through with a smile.
[/video]
I think that best conveys My standpoint.

Ah I am sorry to be asking difficult questions only I think I am not asking difficult questions dear Cyriacus only you are stubborn and do not always answer what I am asking And so for you force and beauty blur, and excuse my english then that means they are hard to distinguish from each other? Does beautiful MA practice as you perceive it require force? Yes I understand that you are visually pleased by synchronisation of multiple practitioners?

And well that first clip reminds me of this

and but I like that and so if you like synchronised practice then what is it about that synchronised practice that you cannot sit through?

And the Capoeira is always a treat to watch I think. Thank you for posting these and for expressing your opinions.

 

[Cyriacus]

Ah I am sorry to be asking difficult questions only I think I am not asking difficult questions dear Cyriacus only you are stubborn and do not always answer what I am asking And so for you force and beauty blur, and excuse my english then that means they are hard to distinguish from each other? Does beautiful MA practice as you perceive it require force? Yes I understand that you are visually pleased by synchronisation of multiple practitioners?

And well that first clip reminds me of this

and but I like that and so if you like synchronised practice then what is it about that synchronised practice that you cannot sit through?

And the Capoeira is always a treat to watch I think. Thank you for posting these and for expressing your opinions.

Well, Yeah, I can be stubborn

Its more like, in order for Me to see something Martial Artsy as being visually appealing, it has to involve Force. So Yeah, pretty much.

Capoeira is indeed a treat to watch

I would watch the Video, but tragically;

This video contains content from SME. It is not available in your country.

Sorry about that.​

 

[Jenna]

Well, Yeah, I can be stubborn

Its more like, in order for Me to see something Martial Artsy as being visually appealing, it has to involve Force. So Yeah, pretty much.

Then must the visual appeal be proportional to the force? Precision of technique is not to be favoured over force?

Capoeira is indeed a treat to watch

Is Capoeira forceful?

I would watch the Video, but tragically;

This video contains content from SME. It is not available in your country.

Sorry about that.​

Well that is because you are in the wrong country! One day you will visit London and then you can watch that video and life and its meaning will be revealed to you and it will be your epiphany Ah it is probably for the best you do not see it. It had images that would scar your mind I think..

 

[lklawson]

The apprehension of beauty is done by perceiving the characteristic in another object or person. It is, therefore, objective. It's only subjective in the sense that it's quite possible that the subject (the person viewing the beautiful object) doesn't recognize the beauty in the first place.



Since beauty is the quality of the object being apprehended this is exactly what it means. Beauty is an objective quality.



Here's the difference. You're defining beauty to mean a reaction someone feels. Which is, as far as I can tell, quite the opposite of what people generally mean by the term. You call a woman beautiful. You don't say you have a beautiful reaction to her. She is beautiful, you have a reaction of delight (or love, or what have you). But you don't have a beautiful reaction. You react to her beauty.



I'm not sure what you're referring to here. I mentioned disagreement not preclusing knowledge as well as beauty residing (or not ersiding) in the subject. I'm not really sure which of those things you refer to here (people disagreeing precluding knowledge or that disagreement meaning beauty is really somehow subjective).

Pax,

Chris

No offense, but what you've written above is nonsensical. It's, frankly illogical. Nor is it the "study" which you've referred having made to and which I've asked for. So far, it looks to me as if your study is simply a collection of internally inconsistent philosophic experiments not the research of actual concrete facts.

Look, I know where this is going. I won't be able to convince you of my position and, if this is the your supporting arguments then you'll never be able to convince me of your position.

Frankly, I'm just going to give up on it. For me to continue would just be making enemies where I had none before or, at best, comparing penis lengths.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Cyriacus]

Then must the visual appeal be proportional to the force? Precision of technique is not to be favoured over force?

Well, it can have a little visual flare more than force, but preferably, Yes. Proportional. And yeah, Technique really doesnt impress Me much. Force is much more visually pleasing in My eyes.

Is Capoeira forceful?

Would You like to have one of those kicks slammed into Your Head? Because thatd be where Theyre mostly aiming for, and They are going pretty hard in

Well that is because you are in the wrong country! One day you will visit London and then you can watch that video and life and its meaning will be revealed to you and it will be your epiphany Ah it is probably for the best you do not see it. It had images that would scar your mind I think..

Phew!

Quick, I need to think of something productive to say in closing!

 

[Cyriacus]

Look, I know where this is going. I won't be able to convince you of my position and, if this is the your supporting arguments then you'll never be able to convince me of your position.

Frankly, I'm just going to give up on it. For me to continue would just be making enemies where I had none before or, at best, comparing penis lengths.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Someone should dedicate an entire Sticky Thread to that statement

 

[chrispillertkd]

No offense, but what you've written above is nonsensical. It's, frankly illogical. Nor is it the "study" which you've referred having made to and which I've asked for. So far, it looks to me as if your study is simply a collection of internally inconsistent philosophic experiments not the research of actual concrete facts.

Well, it wasn't "my study" because I'm not going to distill several college and graduate level courses and books on aesthetics to an online forum post or two I said I'd gladly discuss things with you and asked about the nature of beauty. Why wouldn't we start at the beginning since if people mean different things by the same word then they will be talking at cross purposes? But it does seem obvious that your definition is, while perhaps not unique, certainly not common as the dictionary definition that Cyriacus posted makes plain. If you think my posts are nonsensical, however, there's not much point in continuing the discussion (nor has there been much point in several thousand years of philosophy, apparently )

You're certainly free to hold your opinion, of course, but if you really do think beauty is subjective then it goes back to my statement before. All you can say on the subject is "I like that" or "I don't like that." You can't say whether anything, including martial arts, are beautiful in se.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Xue Sheng]

I am interested in why you do not consider these styles to contain anything beautiful? Are you of the mind that the pure utility and function of these styles is incongruent with anything beautiful? I think this is an issue with certain arts. I think it is often an issue with the art that I practice too. The perception of beauty makes some feel there is no martial utility. Hmm.. I am interested in the disparity between how you view some practices within a style as attractive and others as utilitarian perhaps in a martial sense? Thank you again for your thoughts

Ultimately beauty is in the eye of the beholder and often many do not agree with what I see as beautiful. My Yang Taiji sifu knocks me to the ground with high pat, to me, is beautiful and might cool to. Or in sparing when my 2nd Xingyi sifu and beat the heck out of me, but I got in a few good shots or when a Southern mantis guy gave me a beat down years ago, those are all might cool and beautifully done
Personally I think Xingyiquan done well is a thing of beauty but many who see it feel it is linear and boring.

Xingyiquan

I also tend to see Chen style Taijiquan as more aesthetically pleasing than Yang style Taijiquan and one reason for that is the overt fajin although many may disagree. I also like the Tung Ying Chieh Yang Long form looks better than the current Yang Family long form too. But then I like the overt example of the martial art

I see beauty in the way my Yang sifu does Qinna, but generally I would call it amazement at seeing his level of skill. There is beauty in the proper application of Fan Through Back or push through the mountain or to be more exact 山通臂 (Shan Tong Be) and more so if you can skillfully take that application to Turn Body, Chop with Fist 撇身捶 (Zhuan Shen Pie Chui) that done properly is a beautiful thing. However the result of that is someone got hit pretty hard and has a broken arm and although it is the attacker whose arm is broken and although it had to be done in self-defense that broken arm is never a thing of beauty nor should it be thought of as such. Because to me martial arts in application as it applies to real fighting are very serious and should never be taken lightly or seen as something beautiful because if they are, in my opinion, that is a bad thing. Take it lightly and you will find it easy to break an arm, see it as beautiful and you may go out and break arms for the pure joy and beauty of it. The form can be beautiful, practicing the application can be beautiful but ultimately the reality of it is that it is violent and nasty and the actual violence of it, IMO, is not beautiful nor should it ever be thought of as such. But equally important is the reality of it should not be forgotten, ignored or candy coated, that too is a bad thing

 

[chrispillertkd]

Do you think MA practice can be beautiful?

I never really answered this question but let me just say that, yes I think this is very possible. In his Encyclopedia of Taekwon-Do, in fact, General Choi, Hong Hi states that "Taekwon-Do is an art of self-defense which aims at a noble moral rearmament, high degree of intellectual achievement, graceful techniques, formidible power and beauty of physical form..." In other words, grace and beauty are two of the goals of Taekwon-Do training.

Are there examples of practice or practitioners in your own MA that you would regard as demonstrating beautiful practice?

I have seen many of them over the years. Limiting my answer to only Taekwon-Doin you can easily see beauty in the techniques of practitioners such as Noemi Prone, Jaroslav Suska, Hwang Su Il, Pak Chong Hyon (who, for my money, has even better tul than Hwang Su Il), Joel Denis, and others. I would point out, too, that the exhibition of beauty in Taekwon-Do should not mean a sacrifice of power. Additionally, it isn't something that is necessarily limited to patterns, as you can see in sparring matches of people like Hwang Su Il. That man is often poetry in motion in the ring.

I might class beauty in MA practice as a kind of effortless physical fluency and efficiency. Does that sound congruent do you think? I think there is beauty regardless of the discipline. I wonder do you agree?

I think there's a lot of truth in this. I'd tend to say that beauty can be demonstrated in the techniques themselves and effort is perhaps inversely proportionate to being able to display that beauty. When you get to what you call "effortless physical fluency and efficiency" maybe I'd call that a demonstartion of mastery. It's like the difference between a painter and a master artist. They can both produce beautiful works of art, but the master can do so seemingly effortlessly (after spending years of hard work at his craft, of course!).
As I've heard Grand Master Chuck Sereff say, "Good technique is forged on the anvil of hard training and tempered with sweat."

I could be off mark though. Can I ask, do you think beauty and functionality are mutually exclusive concepts in MA?

Not at all. People often talk about fighting being ugly, and I can see there point. But it's possible to execute fully functional techniques that demonstrate physical beauty, I think. Easy to do? No, but certainly possible. There is also the beauty of effortless execution. The mastery a person displays being able to absolutely control the distance between an opponent and hit him at will has its own beauty to it, I think.

Thanks for adding such a great topic for discussion!

Pax,

Chris

 

[oftheherd1]

I think martial arts can be beautiful when used against an opponent, Judo can look beautiful when a throw is administered perfectly, plus i find some of the techniques used here beautiful.

I am curious. Could you identify some of these (by the clock) that you find beautiful? Thanks for your reply.

 

[Jenna]

Ultimately beauty is in the eye of the beholder and often many do not agree with what I see as beautiful. My Yang Taiji sifu knocks me to the ground with high pat, to me, is beautiful and might cool to. Or in sparing when my 2nd Xingyi sifu and beat the heck out of me, but I got in a few good shots or when a Southern mantis guy gave me a beat down years ago, those are all might cool and beautifully done
Personally I think Xingyiquan done well is a thing of beauty but many who see it feel it is linear and boring.

Yes, I would only wish to know what people as individuals regard as beautiful practice As you say, there is no overall concensus. That is as it should be I think

Xingyiquan

I also tend to see Chen style Taijiquan as more aesthetically pleasing than Yang style Taijiquan and one reason for that is the overt fajin although many may disagree. I also like the Tung Ying Chieh Yang Long form looks better than the current Yang Family long form too. But then I like the overt example of the martial art

I see beauty in the way my Yang sifu does Qinna, but generally I would call it amazement at seeing his level of skill. There is beauty in the proper application of Fan Through Back or push through the mountain or to be more exact 山通臂 (Shan Tong Be) and more so if you can skillfully take that application to Turn Body, Chop with Fist 撇身捶 (Zhuan Shen Pie Chui) that done properly is a beautiful thing. However the result of that is someone got hit pretty hard and has a broken arm and although it is the attacker whose arm is broken and although it had to be done in self-defense that broken arm is never a thing of beauty nor should it be thought of as such. Because to me martial arts in application as it applies to real fighting are very serious and should never be taken lightly or seen as something beautiful because if they are, in my opinion, that is a bad thing. Take it lightly and you will find it easy to break an arm, see it as beautiful and you may go out and break arms for the pure joy and beauty of it. The form can be beautiful, practicing the application can be beautiful but ultimately the reality of it is that it is violent and nasty and the actual violence of it, IMO, is not beautiful nor should it ever be thought of as such. But equally important is the reality of it should not be forgotten, ignored or candy coated, that too is a bad thing

Why do you think the practice of an art can be regarded in such dichotomous terms? That is can be seen as beautiful in one context and violent and nasty in another context? Is is not more consistent to say it is all beautiful or all violent and nasty since the movements are the same, no? I would be interested in your thoughts. Thank you

 

[Jenna]

I never really answered this question but let me just say that, yes I think this is very possible. In his Encyclopedia of Taekwon-Do, in fact, General Choi, Hong Hi states that "Taekwon-Do is an art of self-defense which aims at a noble moral rearmament, high degree of intellectual achievement, graceful techniques, formidible power and beauty of physical form..." In other words, grace and beauty are two of the goals of Taekwon-Do training.



I have seen many of them over the years. Limiting my answer to only Taekwon-Doin you can easily see beauty in the techniques of practitioners such as Noemi Prone, Jaroslav Suska, Hwang Su Il, Pak Chong Hyon (who, for my money, has even better tul than Hwang Su Il), Joel Denis, and others. I would point out, too, that the exhibition of beauty in Taekwon-Do should not mean a sacrifice of power. Additionally, it isn't something that is necessarily limited to patterns, as you can see in sparring matches of people like Hwang Su Il. That man is often poetry in motion in the ring.



I think there's a lot of truth in this. I'd tend to say that beauty can be demonstrated in the techniques themselves and effort is perhaps inversely proportionate to being able to display that beauty. When you get to what you call "effortless physical fluency and efficiency" maybe I'd call that a demonstartion of mastery. It's like the difference between a painter and a master artist. They can both produce beautiful works of art, but the master can do so seemingly effortlessly (after spending years of hard work at his craft, of course!).
As I've heard Grand Master Chuck Sereff say, "Good technique is forged on the anvil of hard training and tempered with sweat."



Not at all. People often talk about fighting being ugly, and I can see there point. But it's possible to execute fully functional techniques that demonstrate physical beauty, I think. Easy to do? No, but certainly possible. There is also the beauty of effortless execution. The mastery a person displays being able to absolutely control the distance between an opponent and hit him at will has its own beauty to it, I think.

Thanks for adding such a great topic for discussion!

Pax,

Chris

And thank you Chris for contributing to the discussion. It is interesting to hear that viewpoint adopted by the General himself. Do you think beauty of physical form is a tenet that is adhered to in TKD as you have observed it? Or is that element forgotten or simply de-prioritised in normal practice? And thank you for listing those you consider to practice with that fluidity and flow. I would not only agree that beauty should never be at the expense of power, I might suggest that beautiful technique can actually be the derivation of that power. If technique is flawless and practice is flowing and with the maximum efficiency in energy transformation then that is not only a beautiful thing, it is also a powerful and effective thing. That is my opinion As you say, this is not easy to do, I think though that beautiful practice is not often something we aim for, perhaps imo, mistaking it for something soft or lacking function or effectiveness. I would suggest that to AIM for beautiful practice is to engineer for oneself power and efficacy in how one practices MA What do you think? Thank you again for taking time to outline your thoughts.

 

[KempoGuy06]

Do you think that the context decides how beautiful a practice is? I am almost excluding MA when called upon in anger, I mean though can sparring or tournament fighting never demonstrate that beauty?

what do you mean by context? Do you mean like you suggested in sparring or tournament fighting? or simply watching someone run through forms?

Despite when it is used i think it could be beautiful. it just depends on the person observing. Whether it comes from the pure grace and fluid movements or raw power and bone crushing strength it can be a thing of beauty.

B

 

[Xue Sheng]

Yes, I would only wish to know what people as individuals regard as beautiful practice As you say, there is no overall concensus. That is as it should be I think

Why do you think the practice of an art can be regarded in such dichotomous terms? That is can be seen as beautiful in one context and violent and nasty in another context? Is is not more consistent to say it is all beautiful or all violent and nasty since the movements are the same, no? I would be interested in your thoughts. Thank you

I don't see any issue here, it is simply reality.

A fighter jet can be a thing of beauty but it is capable of great acts of violence. A taiji form can also be beautiful to watch but it is also cable of committing acts of violence. The violent side should never be forgotten or ignored. A gun or a sword can be beautiful to look at but you should not forget they are weapons in my opinion

 

[chrispillertkd]

And thank you Chris for contributing to the discussion. It is interesting to hear that viewpoint adopted by the General himself.

Indeed, I remember the first time I read that and thought "Really?" It makes much more sense now, however. I think aesthetics is something that people in martial arts often over look, and not just in the area of physical techniques. I think an appreciation of beauty is (potentially) inherent to martial arts practice. A certain decorum is a manifestation of beauty in one's every day action, for example, and in Taekwon-Do etiquette is a big part of training. It shouldn't be forced or affected but rather develop over time as a natural result of training.

Do you think beauty of physical form is a tenet that is adhered to in TKD as you have observed it? Or is that element forgotten or simply de-prioritised in normal practice?

I think that it varies depending on the person. All too often I've seen people perform patterns and sacrifice power for what they think is a concentration on the physical form or appearance of the technique. But that can really result in a facade more than actual beauty. Since techniques are physical movements through space and time I think that their aesthetical aspect includes not only how it looks at the end, when its execution is complete, but the movement as a whole and that includes the generation of power with the body. It's why when people pose out kicks or otherwise alter techniques in order to "look nice" they miss the point. People often critique such kicks as being impractical because you're balancing on one leg for a long time, but it goes deeper than that, IMO. When performed correctly (with power, speed, balance/grace, effortless motion, and a proper retraction - which really is an emphasis that gets overlooked, etc.) then you have a great example of beauty.

Conversley, when people concentrate simply on hitting an opponent as hard as they can without focusing on the proper form they can often do things like fall down after the kick lands. Sure, you may've scored a point, but what good is it? By sacrificing the form (aesthetic ideal) so much you've made the generation of power nearly meaningless since you're now in a very bad position.

And thank you for listing those you consider to practice with that fluidity and flow. I would not only agree that beauty should never be at the expense of power, I might suggest that beautiful technique can actually be the derivation of that power. If technique is flawless and practice is flowing and with the maximum efficiency in energy transformation then that is not only a beautiful thing, it is also a powerful and effective thing. That is my opinion

Absolutely! It's perhaps paradoxical that aesthetics and power are related, but I think not contradictory. I think a good example of the expression of power through beauty can be seen in this video of Joel Denis performing the pattern Moon-Moo:

Part of the reason he generates good power is because he's very technically correct. I've seen people do slower slow motion kicks, higher jumps, etc. but very few who have patterns as beautiful as this. It's stylized combat. The decorum or imperterbility that people should exhibit while performing patterns should eventually make its way into their fighting. It's an expression of indomitable spirit while not losing one's courtesy, I think. There's an inherent attractiveness in such behavior, I think, and that is, of course, an effect of beauty. As Thomas Aquinas says, something isn't beautiful because you love it, you love something because it's beautiful.

As you say, this is not easy to do, I think though that beautiful practice is not often something we aim for, perhaps imo, mistaking it for something soft or lacking function or effectiveness. I would suggest that to AIM for beautiful practice is to engineer for oneself power and efficacy in how one practices MA What do you think? Thank you again for taking time to outline your thoughts.

I think you are definnitely on to spomething. Perhaps one doesn't need to specifically think about developing beauty, if they concentrate on perfecting the techniques themselves which would include power development, but I don't think it would necessarily hurt. The danger is, as I said before, when you conceptualize beauty as being merely a surface appearance. If that happens you tend to not even get that. It's when you go for the deeper meaning that you get what you're after in the first place.

Pax,

Chris