Modern Arnis: The Next Generation Goals
- Thread starter Tgace
- Start date
Tgace said:
I recently asked a similar question. Should the art be preserved to honor the Professor, or evolved as he was doing? Either way, I still worry that the art as such may disappear, even though its influence will still be felt in other arts. I hope that people try to grow and spread the art to people who currently do not study the FMA, and increase the number of people who do it as their primary art.
Tgace said:
Looking at the history of JKD and Kenpo after their founders' deaths, and even lesser known systems like Uechi-ryu and Isshin-ryu that have suffered bitter organizational splits, I wonder if this is realistic? It'd be great, and in line with the Professor's vision and dreams for the art ("I want you to be happy, and fractice together")...but are we so different from those who practcie these other arts?
Tgace said:
I would say to continue to spread the art of Modern Arnis. Unfortunately, splits and bad blood happen, but its still nice to see that there are a few groups/people out there that are carrying on the art.
Mike
kruzada
Orange Belt
I wholly agree. A primary goal for the "Next Generation" of leaders should be to make some effort to heal the Modern Arnis community, which has unfortunately fragmented into several different organizations.
Tgace said:Cool a thread split.
Well Im not a MA leader but I would think some fence mending would be in order no?
MJS said:
Hello Mike,
I would say that there is no known way to prevent the splits that have occured. When there is an iconic figure at the head of an organization, his/her death ususally results in the fragmentation of the once, seemingly unified group. The fizzures were already present during the leader's life. His/her death releases the pressure dome and the resulting eruption leads to first of several breaks in the "once unified" orgnization. In the case of Modern Arnis, some very short-sighted perspectives have only focused on the events from 1999 - 2001. A careful look at the entire 25 years of the late Professor's teaching career in the USA, Canada and Europe would reveal a difinate and continous progrssion of people leaving the IMAF, forming smaller, independent organizations.
Simply take Stanley Arnold, Dennis Toelston, Michael Morton, Rocky Paswik and Tom Bolden as examples. They all left the IMAF under Professor before 1994. There are more, however the point is made with just these few examples. The ideas that we need to accept and support is that the art will continue to be presented, without Professor's presence. In a very real sense he knew this and prepared for it through his conceptual postions of "make it for yourself" and "the art within your art".
There was never a doubt that at some point in time Modern Arnis would have to continue without Professor and his inputs. Everyone of the next generation will also have to pass on, so the focu has to be on developing the next leaders - on a perpetually continuous basis... it's life and death in reality.
Jerome Barber, Ed.D.
DrBarber said:
Hi Mr. Barber,
Thanks for your reply. My appologies, as I don't think that I was as clear as I should have been regarding my post. I do realize that there is no way to prevent a split, and I'm certainly not against that. By all means, people are more than welcome to break off, and begin to do their own thing. As long as they're continuing to spread the art in a positive way, I have no problem with that. My problem is with people who break off because they are more concerned with making themselves look good, rather than keeping their focus on the art.
Mike
Flatlander
Grandmaster
I think that there can be a great deal of value found in making an attempt to train with people from the different organizations, so as to be able to get closer to the essence of the art. It seems to me that there can be a longer term trend toward defragmenting the knowledge if students of the next generation can find ways to get together and share. Then, there can be real growth, honest critique, and genuine evolution, as opposed to competition, separation and protectionism.
The concerns of the first generation need not be handed down to the next. If my teacher has a problem with your teacher, I don't see how that need affect our relationship. It's their problem, not ours.
The concerns of the first generation need not be handed down to the next. If my teacher has a problem with your teacher, I don't see how that need affect our relationship. It's their problem, not ours.
OP
Tgace
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 7,766
- Reaction score
- 409
- Thread Starter
- #10
Isnt the whole concept of "fence mending" a metaphor of two warring parties coming together to mend the "fence" between them? They are still separated by the fence and may never have BBQ's together, but they can be friendly enough to speak to each other over the fence, make polite conversation and live peaceably on their half of the property.
Dan Anderson
Master of Arts
I highly doubt fence mending will occur. Too many differences in personalities and things that have happened. I agree with Flatlander in the idea of cross-training with some of the different groups. Your skill and experience could only improve.
Arnisador,
I say "Don't worry." I think prof. Remy really planted the seed and the rest of us who are active in dissemination of the art by both instruction and products are ensuring it won't up and go away. I think we have a long, prosperous, and varied future ahead of us.
For me, the key goal is to continue to research, practice, and teach the art...just like the old man did.
Yours,
Dan Anderson
Arnisador,
I say "Don't worry." I think prof. Remy really planted the seed and the rest of us who are active in dissemination of the art by both instruction and products are ensuring it won't up and go away. I think we have a long, prosperous, and varied future ahead of us.
For me, the key goal is to continue to research, practice, and teach the art...just like the old man did.
Yours,
Dan Anderson
MJS said:
Hi Mike,
Regarding both your posts, I am in total agreement with you. One problem that I see and that needs addressing is the tendency among some people to push for an "orthodoxy" within the art. This comes about mainly from those who want to study and present Modern Arnis as a stand alone art.
There is nothing wrong with the stand alone concept. After all Professor did tell everyone who was alert and listening to him to "Make the art for yourself." So if that means doing Modern Arnis as a stand alone art, then people should go for it and make sure that they do it well.
On the other hand there is the "art within your art approach". It is also a viable and reliable format for the presentation of Modern Arnis. This is also the FIRST method that Professor used in the USA, Canada and Europe. There is nothing wrong with this approach, but there are some people who want to denigrate and dismiss the instructors who follow this method. Many of the original students of Professor's from 1975 through 1990 were taught the art in this manner by the man himself. Why should they be deemed as incorrect or wrong, by the people who discovered the art and the founder at a later point in time?
There are several ways to present and promote Modern Arnis. The most important thing that is too often being overlooked is QUALITY of INSTRUCTION. IF we (collectively) do not present the art properly with intention, focus, power, finesse and speed it wll whither and die from student attrition. People will move on to other arts, new crazes and 'hot fads because Modern Arnis will
have become just another fancy martial arts dance, with its' main distinction being "a dance with sticks".
Modern Arnis was and is a fighting art, a combative art and it has a very real function which should not be set aside for ego-building, money making and fanciful dance competitions in tournements. I am not saying that everyone should follow my lead and teach Modern Arnis for self-defense purposes, but we must be careful not to emasculate it. There are already instructors from the Western World who have chosen to ignore the reality of Modern Arnis' origins as a long blade martial art. They have also chosen to ignore the fact that Professor published this information in his 1973 Modern Arnis book, published in the Philippines.
The bottom line is if we want this art to survive, prosper and grow, we need to support one another's variations as well as work on teaching a solid, well developed format that encompasses the past will adapting to the future.
Jerome Barber, Ed.D.
This is an interesting topic cause because for me it brings more questions. I give to you all to ponder
- should the goals of Modern Arnis be the same as the Prof. before his passing ? What were they ?
- should the goal be to spread modern arnis or preserve modern arnis and/or Prof. the legacy? Is it the same thing?
I would answer some of these myself right now, but its late and i'm tired. Look forward to reading what you guys think.
Vince
aka Black Grass
- should the goals of Modern Arnis be the same as the Prof. before his passing ? What were they ?
- should the goal be to spread modern arnis or preserve modern arnis and/or Prof. the legacy? Is it the same thing?
I would answer some of these myself right now, but its late and i'm tired. Look forward to reading what you guys think.
Vince
aka Black Grass
Dan Anderson
Master of Arts
Hi Vince,Black Grass said:
1. I don't think so.
1a. His primary goal was to introduce to the west Philippine Sport Culture.
His goal has been achieved.
2. Both dedending on who you are and what you want to do with it. My personal goal is not one of preservation but of research and growth. Right now it is taking me to Prof. Presas' past to meld that with what he had developed up to his passing. From there, who knows?
Other's goals will be different as to the importance they put on them.
Yours,
Dan Anderson
Mark Lynn
Master Black Belt
Tgace said:
Amen brother
Mark Lynn
Master Black Belt
Flatlander said:
Flatlander a very good post.
For myself I have made it a point to try and train (through seminars) with several of the different instructors from the different organizations, and I believe it has really helped me to have a wider view of the art. I 've trained with his brother Ernesto to try and expand my view as well.
What I have liked to see is that some events have been held that show cases several different instrcutors from different organizations to teach and promote the art. Dan's Brevard College camp, Dr. Barber's symposium are two that I personaly attended and know of and I'm sure there are others.
I would like to see the leaders of MA promote and put on camps or seminars of this type in the future. Even if everyone doesn't need to be best buddies afterwards I believe leaders in the seperate organizations could at least be given the chance and oppertunity to attend and instruct and help promote the art. Not as a put up or shut up but lets' all get together and learn together.
I believe that if the art will prosper and grow if it is perceived that you know it's OK to think outside of the box, it's OK to go and train or attend this seminar even if it's not within our organization.
Mark
chris arena
Green Belt
Mark:
I wholeheartedly agree with your perspective on this matter!
Chris Arena
(enthusiastic intermediate)
I wholeheartedly agree with your perspective on this matter!
Chris Arena
(enthusiastic intermediate)
Black Grass said:
my thoughts,
1. I agree with Dan Anderson, I would say no. The Prof. wanted to spread the art AND make a living, He acheived both.
2. I believe that Profs legacy is best kept by continuing t ospread the art and preserving the art. This should be done in exclusivity of each other. Again I agree with Dan Anderson that spreading the art at this point seems to be non-issue, Prof has made it the widest practiced FMA in the world and the art continues to spread even thoguh there is lack of central leadership.
However, some work needs to be done preserving the Art. The difficulty here is that Modern Arnis was an ever changing system.
If one want to preserve Modern Arnis a way is to encapsulate it in periods. For those of you who have attended a Dan Inosanto seminar, when he talks or shows a technique about the Art of Bruce Lee he sometimes qualifies it as coming from the time of the Oakland school, the Los Angles school, Chinese gung Fu or Jun Fan etc... What Modern Arnis' needs is a MA historian(s) someone/persons who has been or knows the entire progression for Modern Arnis from its inception in the Philippines, I believe there are only a handful of people I believe who are qualified to this (non-american), the most qualified person who comes to mind is Roland Dantes. Another approach is to have different people be historians/experts for different time periods in particular. I beleive this is what Prof. Vee had in mind when he had diffrent succesors for Vee Arnis , Vee Jitsu (75) , and Vee Arnis Jitsu (not really sure of the real names here). Modern Arnis already has this to a certain extend, with the Masters of Tapi-Tapi, as their main focus seems to teach the art as Prof taught starting aroung 96-97 till the time of his death where a large focus seemed to be Tapi Tapi. What I believe is import here is for these historians not to alter or introduce any personal inovations, or at least clearly define "as was taught to me by Prof Presas" vs. ones own 'style'/'interpretation' of modern arnis . I know this would become very frustrating for ones own personal groth as a martial artist
Regards,
Vince
aka Black Grass
The comparison to Bruce Lee's systems is interesting. Indeed, I find that what I do has less in common with the Philippines groups than I might hope, and differs greatly in emphasis from those who strongly focus on tapi-tapi. Yet, they're all shadows of the same art.
