Recreation of the application of forms

[hoshin1600]

I'm not sure I agree entirely with the "it's there if it's intended, otherwise it's a figment" assertion. Let's take the toast example.

If the baker just made a loaf of bread, but there's a pattern that resembles Pesci, that's a thing. We could debate whether that thing is a fact or an opinion (and support either case), but the fact is there's a pattern that can be recognized by at least some as looking like Pesci.

Now, if the baker had intended to put in an image of Pesci, but ended up with a rough circle with no features, his intention doesn't change that. So my assertion is that the intention doesn't entirely control what exists. I didn't design any secondary techniques in my kata. But if someone finds the appropriate motions to teach a hip throw in the transition between two techniques, then the movement for a hip throw is there, whether I intended it or not.

i am not sure i fully understand your view.
what i was trying to express is that if the founder created the form and the first moves he did were... high block then low block with the right hand, then it is a fact that the kata contains a high block followed by a low block. that was his intent. if i come along and see the moves and think its a forearm strike to the incoming sword attack then followed by a hammer fist strike to the lower liver chi meridian, then that meaning is a figment of my imagination. this is why i used the Jesus on the toast analogy, people see what they want to see.
since the bulk of the shorin linage kata that started with Matsumura Sokon have lost the original meanings to history and time, then they are really nothing more then ink blots. this causes a problem with consistency and effectiveness of bunkai and thus the kata. the quality and effectiveness of the bunkai is going to be relative to the understanding of the practitioner. as Bill Mattocks is fond of saying "we all suck". guess what the bunkai is going to be like?

Now, if the baker had intended to put in an image of Pesci, but ended up with a rough circle with no features, his intention doesn't change that

what i think this would mean is that the high block, low block combo was his intention but that application is also sub- par as far as effectiveness goes.

 

[skribs]

i am not sure i fully understand your view.
what i was trying to express is that if the founder created the form and the first moves he did were... high block then low block with the right hand, then it is a fact that the kata contains a high block followed by a low block. that was his intent. if i come along and see the moves and think its a forearm strike to the incoming sword attack then followed by a hammer fist strike to the lower liver chi meridian, then that meaning is a figment of my imagination. this is why i used the Jesus on the toast analogy, people see what they want to see.
since the bulk of the shorin linage kata that started with Matsumura Sokon have lost the original meanings to history and time, then they are really nothing more then ink blots. this causes a problem with consistency and effectiveness of bunkai and thus the kata. the quality and effectiveness of the bunkai is going to be relative to the understanding of the practitioner. as Bill Mattocks is fond of saying "we all suck". guess what the bunkai is going to be like?

what i think this would mean is that the high block, low block combo was his intention but that application is also sub- par as far as effectiveness goes.

A few thoughts I have on this:

1. If it's stupid and it works, it isn't stupid.
2. If it doesn't work, that means that specific interpretation is bad. It doesn't mean that it's impossible to interpret anything other than what the original intent was.
3. You are right - quite often the same movement, or almost the same movement, can be 2 different things. I think that actually leads credence to the argument that you CAN interpret katas in multiple ways.
4. There are different ways to interpret kata. One way is as you say - to interpret what each technique is. Is this an inside block or is it an inward chop? Are you grabbing your enemy and pulling them, or are you pulling your hand away from the enemy's grasp? On the other hand, there is the application of what else you can do with a technique. In your high block, low block example, you might be learning that specific combination. Or you might be learning how to flow from a high block into a different technique, and can turn that into an inside block, outside block, or hammerfist (to the temple, not the liver), instead of a low block. You might do another transition from high to low - high block, grab the hand, and then twist down to bring your opponent off balance. Even if the creator of the form only intended to teach you how to go from high block to low block, a different instructor can grab different meanings out of this.
5. I can use a barbel for squats, lifts, presses, and curls. I feel katas are like the barbel - a tool that can be used. Just because someone is doing squats with a barbel, doesn't mean that's the only effective method of using them. I may decide to use curls instead, because I want to focus on different muscle groups with that exercise. You can teach the rote memorization of the kata in one class, and then teach different applications of the motions, and different applications of the concepts in future classes. Just like I can work on my chest with one exercise and my biceps with the next.

 

[hoshin1600]

A few thoughts I have on this:

1. If it's stupid and it works, it isn't stupid.
2. If it doesn't work, that means that specific interpretation is bad. It doesn't mean that it's impossible to interpret anything other than what the original intent was.
3. You are right - quite often the same movement, or almost the same movement, can be 2 different things. I think that actually leads credence to the argument that you CAN interpret katas in multiple ways.
4. There are different ways to interpret kata. One way is as you say - to interpret what each technique is. Is this an inside block or is it an inward chop? Are you grabbing your enemy and pulling them, or are you pulling your hand away from the enemy's grasp? On the other hand, there is the application of what else you can do with a technique. In your high block, low block example, you might be learning that specific combination. Or you might be learning how to flow from a high block into a different technique, and can turn that into an inside block, outside block, or hammerfist (to the temple, not the liver), instead of a low block. You might do another transition from high to low - high block, grab the hand, and then twist down to bring your opponent off balance. Even if the creator of the form only intended to teach you how to go from high block to low block, a different instructor can grab different meanings out of this.
5. I can use a barbel for squats, lifts, presses, and curls. I feel katas are like the barbel - a tool that can be used. Just because someone is doing squats with a barbel, doesn't mean that's the only effective method of using them. I may decide to use curls instead, because I want to focus on different muscle groups with that exercise. You can teach the rote memorization of the kata in one class, and then teach different applications of the motions, and different applications of the concepts in future classes. Just like I can work on my chest with one exercise and my biceps with the next.

i agree with all of this with one note of clarification

and can turn that into an inside block, outside block, or hammerfist (to the temple, not the liver),

i did not say the liver. i said

lower liver chi meridian,

meaning the chi meridian line that corresponds to the liver. meaning its a groin shot but the intent is the hit the chi energy line. chi lines are named after organs. (not that i believe in chi, i was just using that as an example)

everything you said makes sense but application starts to break down as the movements get more complex and funky. as the movements in the kata get more complex and less straight forward peoples interpretations can get really crazy.

 

[skribs]

i agree with all of this with one note of clarification

i did not say the liver. i said
meaning the chi meridian line that corresponds to the liver. meaning its a groin shot but the intent is the hit the chi energy line. chi lines are named after organs. (not that i believe in chi, i was just using that as an example)

everything you said makes sense but application starts to break down as the movements get more complex and funky. as the movements in the kata get more complex and less straight forward peoples interpretations can get really crazy.

Then why not just say "hammerfist to the groin"?

 

[hoshin1600]

Then why not just say "hammerfist to the groin"?

because the quote was supposed to be a little over the top to show imagination not a logical application. i guess i was being a little to subtle for some to get it

 

[Gerry Seymour]

i am not sure i fully understand your view.
what i was trying to express is that if the founder created the form and the first moves he did were... high block then low block with the right hand, then it is a fact that the kata contains a high block followed by a low block. that was his intent. if i come along and see the moves and think its a forearm strike to the incoming sword attack then followed by a hammer fist strike to the lower liver chi meridian, then that meaning is a figment of my imagination. this is why i used the Jesus on the toast analogy, people see what they want to see.
since the bulk of the shorin linage kata that started with Matsumura Sokon have lost the original meanings to history and time, then they are really nothing more then ink blots. this causes a problem with consistency and effectiveness of bunkai and thus the kata. the quality and effectiveness of the bunkai is going to be relative to the understanding of the practitioner. as Bill Mattocks is fond of saying "we all suck". guess what the bunkai is going to be like?

what i think this would mean is that the high block, low block combo was his intention but that application is also sub- par as far as effectiveness goes.

Okay, I think I follow you on this one. My point is that finding something new in it doesn’t make the new thing wrong. Perhaps the understanding and application has evolved, but not the kata. If that happens, and the new application can still be reasonably found in the toast...er, kata...then it’s there, whether it was originally intended or not. I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with that UNLESS (and I think this gets back to your point) we are trying too hard to make the kata lead application, so that it limits our thinking and evolution.

 

[MI_martialist]

Read Hoshin's post...it depends on the meaning they find...interpretation!!

I will agree that the "arts" of martial arts used to be that way, but it certainly does not any more...it is much more about interpretive application...

It has nothing to do with art.

The word “art” in martial arts has nothing to do with artistic interpretation. It is a term used to mean “method” or “technique” or “skill acquired through practice.”

 

[MI_martialist]

Let me rephrase...I can find martial application in them, yes...I cannot speak to the reasons, analysis done to build them though. They seem to be constructed to win trophies.

But your "hands" analogy still applies. The intent of dance may be devoid of martial meaning but who is to say some student can not find some meaning.
And if future generations do find meaning is that meaning valid since it was not the original intent and merely a figment of the students imagination?

 

[MI_martialist]

Art in martial arts comes from before modern day "do' type arts. The word art was applied to, in the Japanese context, jutsu...art, technique, method, science, magic...

It has nothing to do with art.

The word “art” in martial arts has nothing to do with artistic interpretation. It is a term used to mean “method” or “technique” or “skill acquired through practice.”

 

[Flying Crane]

Read Hoshin's post...it depends on the meaning they find...interpretation!!

I will agree that the "arts" of martial arts used to be that way, but it certainly does not any more...it is much more about interpretive application...

Not in my world. Maybe it is in yours.

 

[Flying Crane]

Art in martial arts comes from before modern day "do' type arts. The word art was applied to, in the Japanese context, jutsu...art, technique, method, science, magic...

Look the word up in the dictionary.

 

[MI_martialist]

It is not at all my world...but it is seen all over in the arts martial world...fighting application, efficiency, function follows form for most people...even if they don't think so, it is true...simply ask to see applications for their forms...starting with their basic attention stance...

Not in my world. Maybe it is in yours.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It is not at all my world...but it is seen all over in the arts martial world...fighting application, efficiency, function follows form for most people...even if they don't think so, it is true...simply ask to see applications for their forms...starting with their basic attention stance...

What do you mean by "basic attention stance"?

 

[Dirty Dog]

It is not at all my world...but it is seen all over in the arts martial world...fighting application, efficiency, function follows form for most people...even if they don't think so, it is true...simply ask to see applications for their forms...starting with their basic attention stance...

The application for an attention stance is to pay attention to what you're being taught by the instructor.

 

[Flying Crane]

It is not at all my world...but it is seen all over in the arts martial world...fighting application, efficiency, function follows form for most people...even if they don't think so, it is true...simply ask to see applications for their forms...starting with their basic attention stance...

Oh there is plenty of crappy martial arts out there. But I don’t see anyone doing it for artistic sake, other than Modern Wushu and XMA.

 

[hoshin1600]

my usual argument on the "art" of martial art is a freedom of personal expression of movement. Eric Clapton has a skill level that allows him to freely express himself. the free flow of expression, from the music he hears in his mind to the physical expression of his fingers. For someone on his level there is no limitation of skill that hinders the creative thought. now someone like myself will sit down with the guitar and want to play something i have in mind or something that i hear but i just do not have the skill to do so. i also do not have the ability to take a brush to canvass and paint what my mind can imagine or what my eyes see nor can i dance. people who are free of limitations have an artistic freedom of expression.
however in a violent interaction i do have the freedom of expression. i can think to myself that i want to kick my aggressor in the head with a round kick and i do have the skills to do it. i can physically express anything i can conceive in my mind. i can assume that Eric does not have that ability. lol some people may want to do a jump spinning back kick but cannot fulfill that expression because they do not have the physical ability.
this is partially why martial arts are an art.
anyone who is following the pursuit of the freedom to movement so that there mind is not limited by the body (and this includes fighting) can be said to be doing it for "artistic sake". its just that the medium of that artistic expression is one of violence.

 

[MI_martialist]

One of many...what about actual fighting application?

The application for an attention stance is to pay attention to what you're being taught by the instructor.

 

[MI_martialist]

Not to call anyone / anything out, but many Aikiki schools will come out and tell you that the form is more important to them than function..art first...

Oh there is plenty of crappy martial arts out there. But I don’t see anyone doing it for artistic sake, other than Modern Wushu and XMA.

 

[MI_martialist]

I understand what you are saying...but...just because you can, does it mean you should?

I also agree that at a certain point, martial science becomes martial art...freedom of expression...at a certain point. Do we really believe that these "martial artists" are all at that point? They cannot be, and since they cannot be, they are "arts martial" in that they are incapable of properly expressing freedom, and since they cannot, they make it up and call it art...

my usual argument on the "art" of martial art is a freedom of personal expression of movement. Eric Clapton has a skill level that allows him to freely express himself. the free flow of expression, from the music he hears in his mind to the physical expression of his fingers. For someone on his level there is no limitation of skill that hinders the creative thought. now someone like myself will sit down with the guitar and want to play something i have in mind or something that i hear but i just do not have the skill to do so. i also do not have the ability to take a brush to canvass and paint what my mind can imagine or what my eyes see nor can i dance. people who are free of limitations have an artistic freedom of expression.
however in a violent interaction i do have the freedom of expression. i can think to myself that i want to kick my aggressor in the head with a round kick and i do have the skills to do it. i can physically express anything i can conceive in my mind. i can assume that Eric does not have that ability. lol some people may want to do a jump spinning back kick but cannot fulfill that expression because they do not have the physical ability.
this is partially why martial arts are an art.
anyone who is following the pursuit of the freedom to movement so that there mind is not limited by the body (and this includes fighting) can be said to be doing it for "artistic sake". its just that the medium of that artistic expression is one of violence.

 

[hoshin1600]

I understand what you are saying...but...just because you can, does it mean you should?

This is a completely different topic.

I also agree that at a certain point, martial science becomes martial art...freedom of expression...at a certain point. Do we really believe that these "martial artists" are all at that point? They cannot be, and since they cannot be, they are "arts martial" in that they are incapable of properly expressing freedom, and since they cannot, they make it up and call it art...

Without getting into detail, my example was one of a micro scale. The connection between mind and body. When you mention "martial science" that is more a macro level view. Though it can still be an art if brought to a high level as you point out. But then you propose that "if one cannot, then it's not art" this only holds true on the macro level. On the micro level of the mind/ body connection it is not the end result that constitutes an art but rather the pursuit. Just because someone is not Rembrandt doesn't disqualify them as an artist. In fact most are not but they are still artists if they are following the pursuit.