Evolving Your Art: Is It Necessary?

[MJS]

There is a thread in another section here, asking if the art of Arnis is dead? One person made a comment about evolution and it sparked me to start this thread.

Does an art have to evolve? If so, what do you feel has to be done or added to keep it current?

If the founder of an art passes on, should the successor, if there is one, or the senior students of the art, continue to teach it as is, or add things in?

These are just a few questions to get things rolling. Feel free to expand from there.

Mike

 

[exile]

There is a thread in another section here, asking if the art of Arnis is dead? One person made a comment about evolution and it sparked me to start this thread.

Does an art have to evolve? If so, what do you feel has to be done or added to keep it current?

If the founder of an art passes on, should the successor, if there is one, or the senior students of the art, continue to teach it as is, or add things in?

These are just a few questions to get things rolling. Feel free to expand from there.

Mike

Just a `bibliographic' note: there has been a long-running thread on this that Kidswarrior started, which yielded some very interesting discussion:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=47787

There was, if not exactly a consensus, a strong sense emerging from many different posts that tradition and evolution are two sides of the same coin in any art with genuine martial depth to it. Tradition is a repository of what has worked in the past, recorded in terms of kata or other kinds of forms, or in certain kinds of drill exercises (e.g., Pellegrini's Combat Hapkido which does not have patterns per se, but does have certain kinds of drill patterns for progressive development of skills under `live' conditions, which get increasingly complex as the student progresses; in my limited exposure to it, it seems to me that you could see these drills in a way as a kind of two-person kata which you can train at varying degrees of realism). Evolution involves (i) adjustment of traditional skills for changing conditions; (ii) changes in training practices (taking into account the differences between the lifestyles and cultures of trainees a century or more ago and trainees now); (iii) new discoveries about biomechanics or effective defensive tactics (the `fence'-based approach to face-to-face confrontations developed by Geoff Thompson is a good example, one applicable across a variety of MAs).

There is a lot of stuff in TMAs that wouldn't be there if it hadn't worked. But there are also differences between 19th c. Shuri and 21st century Seattle that mean you need to periodically rethink older material to keep it fresh, without losing the effectiveness of many of those older methods. The thread I mentioned above has a lot of specific examples of both aspects...

 

[Andrew Green]

Does an art have to evolve?

Nope. Arts don't have to do anything except what there practitioners want them to do. Some people like to preserve a tradition, others like to be creative with there art. Both are worthwhile goals.

 

[tellner]

It depends a lot on what your goals are with martial arts. Or as the engineer in me says "What problem are you trying to solve?" If it's primarily for recreational, social and exercise purposes there's no reason to change anything except as your curiosity demands.

If you're interested in competition you need to change what you do to suit the changing demands of the arena. Consider Full Contact Karate and its variants. Come BJJ and the UFC they had to change. Then everyone learned the Gracies' tricks and how to counter them. Some day it will change again. Closer to reality, remember Bjorn Borg. When he tried to make a comeback his old style of play and his wooden racket put him at a serious disadvantage.

If self defense is a serious part of your reasons and not just an excuse because you think "It's fun and I like hanging out with the people" doesn't sound impressive enough then change is necessary. The basics haven't changed in thousands of years. Honestly, if you've found something that teaches you how to fight you've found something that teaches you how to fight. You're doing pretty well regardless. But there are always changes in what you're likely to come up against. Clothing, urban design, the habits of cirminals, the weapons you are likely to come up against or use and a hundred other things don't stay the same. If you want to maximize your chances, then what you do can't either.

 

[arnisador]

Business management expert W.E. Deming used to open his seminars with some variant of "change happens, but learning is not necessary; after all, survival is optional." Substitute evolution for learning--which I think is what he meant--and there you go.

 

[kidswarrior]

Just a `bibliographic' note: there has been a long-running thread on this that Kidswarrior started, which yielded some very interesting discussion:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=47787

There was, if not exactly a consensus, a strong sense emerging from many different posts that tradition and evolution are two sides of the same coin in any art with genuine martial depth to it. Tradition is a repository of what has worked in the past, recorded in terms of kata or other kinds of forms, or in certain kinds of drill exercises....
Evolution involves (i) adjustment..., (ii) changes..., (iii) new discoveries

The bolded text was my conclusion, too, Exile, and that was after learning far more from the MT community than I believed would happen when the thread began.

But as an aspiring lifelong learner, I thought it couldn't hurt to ask myself the question again in MJS's terms: Does an art have to evolve? A related note: am also attempting to be mindful of the other General MA thread which is asking about tradition. Came up with this as my core belief regarding the art I practice and teach:

There is the form of the art, the ideal, the thing that never changes. For example, a front ball kick is done the right way, or it's wrong. This is most easily seen when the kick or technique or form or whatever is performed in the air (no partner to muddy up the martial artist's performance).

And then there is the application of the art, the real, the thing that always changes, that never looks quite the same any two times. This is most often the result when a kick (strike/throw/grab/block) or combination or form is performed against an opponent (a training partner, a street thug) whose purpose is to muddy the waters. The original ideal must now become a real piece of fighting, applicable in the moment, or else doomed to obsolescence. Each successful new application might be seen as a small bit of evolution of the art--or the artist.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Business management expert W.E. Deming used to open his seminars with some variant of "change happens, but learning is not necessary; after all, survival is optional." Substitute evolution for learning--which I think is what he meant--and there you go.

Yes, the process and the willing worker, and yet they still fail.


It will evolve, but as I have stated before preservation is good. Just keep track of the things that changed (* they could be based upon good solid principals of the system so not really that new and improved but ... *) this way one organization to antoher or school to school can know why there are differences and not because someone is not doing what the 12 time removed GM used to do.

 

[stickarts]

My view is that an art is going to evolve whether we want it to or not.
Instructors will intentionally make changes that they feel are better, changes will unintentionally be made as things are forgotten or misunderstood, and we are also impacted by changes in society.

I definately agree that changes should only be made with understanding of why the change is being made and with a good supporting reason(s).

 

[Xue Sheng]

Does an art have to evolve?

depends on the art, maybe yes, maybe no.

 

[tshadowchaser]

If evolving includes advertising, changing uniforms to keep with what is new in style and type of material used, or simply keeping an open mind to ways which a technique is used then I would say yes. However that is not to say that one mustchange the general way in which a system is taught or what is taught within that system.

 

[Steel Tiger]

Is evolution is MAs necessary? I don't think so. Is it inevitable? Yes most certainly. Any art that survives beyond the social and technological circumstances of its birth will change or disappear. The modern arts are quite different to their forebears.

An interesting point about evolution in this sense. Biological evolution is a process whereby the species most suited to living in given conditions will prosper. Social evolution, which MAs really operate under, does not have that improve or die aspect. So, in a social evolutionary environment it is actually possible for something to get worse through evolution.

Take a look at TKD. In its short, but eventful, history there has been much evolution brought about by the desires of the Korean government it seems. Talk to many TKD practitioners and you will definitely get the impression that TKD has lost something through this evolution.

 

[exile]

An interesting point about evolution in this sense. Biological evolution is a process whereby the species most suited to living in given conditions will prosper. Social evolution, which MAs really operate under, does not have that improve or die aspect. So, in a social evolutionary environment it is actually possible for something to get worse through evolution.

Right. Evolution, which simply means a response to environmental pressures in which the form of something changes over time, is not the same as progress, and never had that connotation (although plenty of people use two terms almost interchangeably). And extinction, remember, is part of evolution. If those selectional pressures drive an organism into a particular corner which turns out to be seriously wrong in terms of subsequent environmental changes—think dinosaurs, large cold-climate post-Pleistocene mammals, that sort of thing—then they die. Evolution, but from their point of view, at least, not exactly progress.

Take a look at TKD. In its short, but eventful, history there has been much evolution brought about by the desires of the Korean government it seems.

A perfect example of non-progressive evolution (leading maybe to extinction, along the lines many judoka feel face their martial art as a result of the imposition of a largely competitive model of practice on the instructional landscape).

Talk to many TKD practitioners and you will definitely get the impression that TKD has lost something through this evolution.

No truer words, etc.

 

[Em MacIntosh]

Those who do not evolve run a high risk of being left behind. Evolution requires responsibility.

 

[14 Kempo]

Seems rather silly to me. If there was no evolution, there would be no tradition and therefore no art. Each art had to evolve first and foremost in order to exist.

 

[Steel Tiger]

Seems rather silly to me. If there was no evolution, there would be no tradition and therefore no art. Each art had to evolve first and foremost in order to exist.

This is an important point that often goes overlooked. No art became fully-formed. It seems, at times, that the MA community is a very extreme beast. A lot of us here talk about middle ground and compromise, but often such answers come as a result of statements of extreme positions. Positions like, "Traditional MAs allow you to tap into the hidden superhuman powers of qi and turn you into a fighting dynamo," or "MMA is the best, cannot be beaten, simulates the real streets, all practitioners are superhuman." Neither is accurate, the truth lies somewhere in between.

Very few martial artists are willing to acknowledge the beginnings of their art if they even know them.

 

[OUMoose]

Does an art have to evolve? If so, what do you feel has to be done or added to keep it current?

If the founder of an art passes on, should the successor, if there is one, or the senior students of the art, continue to teach it as is, or add things in?

Does it HAVE to evolve? No. Will it? Yes. No matter how much anyone laments traditionalism, no one person will interpret a movement the exact same way as someone else. To put it in perspective, I'm over 6' tall, my former instructor was 5'3". We could mirror the exact same technique down to breathing the same during djurus, however, when put to application, it was most certainly different. I suppose if one were in the MA's for the personal discipline aspect, and not the martial applications, it (being the art) would not evolve with that person.

In regards to the passing of the founder/leader of the art, I think that, no matter which direction he/she chooses, it will be wrong to someone. It will either be too strict and hindered by the "old" ways, or too progressive and diverging from the roots. Personally, if I were in that position, I would teach as I was taught. Once that is firmly in place, you (as in the generic "you") could help the student foster their own interpretation, which may or may not be "traditional".

Ultimately, MA's are the student's journey, not the teacher's. Teachers are merely a guide to show the path.

Hope that didn't wander too much off topic. :asian:

 

[Em MacIntosh]

Like watching grass grow, you can't see it but you can compare it to the day before and measure the change. Sometimes change occurs that cannot be measured, yet can be percieved. All grass grows. Every blade of it. Change is inevitable. That is the natural way of the universe. We, as so called sentient beings, have given ourselves a title and the responsibility with it. The responsibility to accept, but diligently observe and assist change for the better. The artist may finish a piece of art, but is never truly finished. The more fluid and adaptive your art, the better suited to change it is. The softest thing cannot be broken. Only time will tell.

 

[whitetiger2001]

As MAs, we have to maintain the traditions of our arts because they are well founded and have served their part. But as people, we are creatures of change, either deliberately or otherwise. Change for the sake of change is pointless but social and technological changes make evolution nessecary. Would somone in the early 9th century have to know defense against firearms? But over time, guns, especially pistol became an issue and so techniques had to be devised to counter it.
Some regions were forced through politcal climates to hide their art because it was outlawed so they found way to disguise it and still train. This forced some to disguise their arts as dance or theater while maintaining the roots of the art.
Some took what they learned home and adapted their knowldeg to suit their needs. Even the Shaolin took what was taught as a series of exercises based on animal movements and turn them into a self defense art because they felt it was nessecary. Ninjutsu came into existance because it was needed to counter the samurai. MA history is full of examples where change was crutial because the circumstances demanded it.
Evolution is a slow, at times inperceivable proccess but it will happen whether we want it to or not. If there was no evolution, we would all train in the same style. But what we have instead is a fascinating and diverse wealth of styles and knowledge

 

[RITFencing]

As a fencer, I am a big proponent of evolution in my art. As people find different techniques, tactics and teaching styles, they can create stronger fencers and gain a better understanding of fencing as a whole. It also prevents people at the top of the game from becoming complacent; the type of game that won the Olympics in 1980 Men's Sabre would not fare very well now, and any coaches and fencers who want to stay on top have to constantly grow and change, rather than stagnate (on the converse, I know of at least one coach who is a former Olympian and never changed, and while he knows a great deal about how fencing WAS, his students tend to get annihilated.)

It also keeps what is to me a very healthy attitude: pragmatism. When I fence or do any martial art, I am looking first and foremost for a practical way to win bouts, defend myself, deal with stress, get in better shape, and any number of other things. If a better way to do any of these things comes along, should it not be adopted because it is not traditional?

The mental flexibility required to keep an open mind about changes not only opens doors to experiment and try new things (and abandon them if they do not work) but also, I think, encourages a tactical flexibility and creativity that allows each fencer to grow stronger and learn to adapt what they are learning to their own needs.

 

[Hand Sword]

There is a thread in another section here, asking if the art of Arnis is dead? One person made a comment about evolution and it sparked me to start this thread.

Does an art have to evolve? If so, what do you feel has to be done or added to keep it current?

If the founder of an art passes on, should the successor, if there is one, or the senior students of the art, continue to teach it as is, or add things in?

These are just a few questions to get things rolling. Feel free to expand from there.

Mike

I would answer an absolutely yes, due to this reason. It's unavoidable. Evolution occurs irregardless of desires. Everyone who practices is an individual. Each has their own preferences, likes and dislikes. Eventually it all translates into their art.