What seperates "Martial" from "Art" today?

Goldendragon7

Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 15, 2002
Messages
5,643
Reaction score
37
Location
Scottsdale, Arizona
With all the different perceptions or takes on all the various systems of the "Martial Arts" today, which all seem to rely on.... What, why, how, where, and so on....., what is the difference in todays world between who is "Martial" and who is "Art" or is there a difference?

:confused:
 
Originally posted by Goldendragon7
With all the different perceptions or takes on all the various systems of the "Martial Arts" today, which all seem to rely on.... What, why, how, where, and so on....., what is the difference in todays world between who is "Martial" and who is "Art" or is there a difference?

:confused:

I feel that those that really "push" an art, are concerned with tradition, no change, and really adhere to thier roots, like TKD.

My 2 cents. Thanks:asian:
 
:confused: To state the obvious, could it be that the "martial" person sees his or her training as a preparation for a possible event and there lies the art. The "art" or artist sees the training as perfection of self first and "martial" only as a secondary purpose?
I.D.
 
I sort of put Martial Artists in 3 categories:

The Martial Artist - A practioner who is more concerned with the asthetic or artistic side of the Martial Arts. Many of these types never explore or try to validate the self defense theories that they teach/learn. Then there are some that are more concerned with the intellectual side of it all. Really missing the point.

The Martial Artist - Now this practioner is more concerned with what works. With no concern for tradition, asthetics, principles of motion or style. Not always a bad thing though.

The Martial Artist - This is the balanced person. They may lean a little more towards one side or the other, but they still keep a certain balance of both sides. A person who is concerned with what works as well as the mental and/or artistic side of it.

Actually, there is one more type. It's the "I am so full of crap and I've got my head firmly embedded so far up my...um...Artist". :D Anyway, it's the ones that give us all a bad rep.:shrug:
 
Originally posted by Goldendragon7
With all the different perceptions or takes on all the various systems of the "Martial Arts" today, which all seem to rely on.... What, why, how, where, and so on....., what is the difference in todays world between who is "Martial" and who is "Art" or is there a difference?

:confused:

I think it is more up to the individual and what they want out of the art. Not comparing yourself to others and doing what you can do with your style. I used to have a very big problem with comparing myself to others and getting hung up over what they can do as opposed to me and in a sense missing my strengths because of this.

My definition (which differs from most Im sure) is maritial means "suitable for war" and art is a "means of expression" That is what as an individual I feel I am doing as a martial artist, expressing or training in something that is suitable for war.

Many take martial to represent characteristics of the military to a certain extent yes I think martial reflects the military but many reasons for things in the military isnt learning or expressing. Much of the "training" you recieve in the military is to react to a command or order not to train or think.

A long way to get from point a to b I guess but it is up to the individual and what they want out of their style or training. What id the persons definition of a martial artist, some definitions are better then others but still it is up to the individual.
 
Originally posted by brianhunter
My definition (which differs from most Im sure) is Maritial means "suitable for war"

You got that right! :rofl: Kind a little of both there, huh! :rofl:
 
Originally posted by jeffkyle
You got that right! :rofl: Kind a little of both there, huh! :rofl:

crap!!! my speil chequer wasnt working on that one! Maybe it was a fruedian slip! ;) Good eye
 
Originally posted by Zoran
I sort of put Martial Artists in 3 categories:

The Martial Artist - A practioner who is more concerned with the asthetic or artistic side of the Martial Arts. Many of these types never explore or try to validate the self defense theories that they teach/learn. Then there are some that are more concerned with the intellectual side of it all. Really missing the point.

The Martial Artist - Now this practioner is more concerned with what works. With no concern for tradition, asthetics, principles of motion or style. Not always a bad thing though.

The Martial Artist - This is the balanced person. They may lean a little more towards one side or the other, but they still keep a certain balance of both sides. A person who is concerned with what works as well as the mental and/or artistic side of it.

Actually, there is one more type. It's the "I am so full of crap and I've got my head firmly embedded so far up my...um...Artist". :D Anyway, it's the ones that give us all a bad rep.:shrug:

I agree with your first three.

My fourth, though, would be the I do a martial art just for the sport (read TKD, judo and karate, which imo have forgotten all about art and all about martial except for a few exceptions).
 
Zoran, your post saved me so much typing here. I've seen guys totally destroy a technique in an effort to make it look artistic as well as guys that turn their noses at the concept of redirection or circular motion because it isn't hard core enough.

Before I even began training in MA I was aware that a sense of balance, yin/yang if you will, was necessary and have worked toward that end. I will admit to leaning a little more to the martial side of the spectrum but always attempt to stay aware that the artist side of things augment the martial and vice versa.
 
Originally posted by Goldendragon7
With all the different perceptions or takes on all the various systems of the "Martial Arts" today, which all seem to rely on.... What, why, how, where, and so on....., what is the difference in todays world between who is "Martial" and who is "Art" or is there a difference?

:confused:

Well,

Hasn't the environment changed from the days when people focused on the "martial" part almost exclusively? In the early, early stages there were pretty much only men. With few women and children. So that "yang" could be cultivated into a frenzy of testosterone. Additionally, people didn't know any better than to just beat the crap out of each other to get better at what they were doing. Also the system hadn't evolved...

Today, women and kids are a reality for many that attempt to make a living teaching the arts and the monthly nut has to be met. So concessions are made to the "martial" aspects. Additionally, with the advent of greater technology and the passage of time people have come to learn that the dragon is as important as the tiger. Every instructor I've been blessed to train with has told me, "man, you don't want to do the crazy stuff we used to do..." that why my (fill in the blank) is in such bad shape now...so they learned and passed on that knowledge.

Bad backs, bad shins, calcium deposits on their arms and fists, or generally waking up in some form of traction from hard training years past..

I respect and appreciate all of that experience and the sacrifices that I've been able to benefit from. Of course, the road is long and bumpy so I've fallen a few times myself and have gained hands-on insight as well.

The question is has the pendulum swung so far one way or the other, that there is not happy medium?

Is there a difference. I think so. Go into a school and train, do a technique line, spar and see where they are. If they explain the concepts and principles behind the system, but pitty pat then they may be too caught up in the intellectual masterbation of Kenpo. If they are in a technique line cracking the ***** out of each other with no regard for breaking their "stone" or sparring every round like they need to kill someone with no "structured" learning taking place, then maybe they are on the other end and don't really "know the system", but have got the *** kickin part down.

It's funny that you put the "confused" face at the end of your post..because we all know, that of all people, you are not...

just my thoughts, jb:asian:
 
I guess I see the two terms as inseperable. No matter how you train, or for what purpose (combat, survival, sport, self development, etc.), you are training an expression of a fighting skill. Consider painting. You could paint flowers (hippies doing Tai Chi), abstracts of disembodied people (American Kenpo), or a sepia of pigs in a wallow (grappling). It is still art. And if your 'canvas' is a serries of moves meant for fighting, it's a martial art- whether or not you understand or even realize it.
 
Without a "war" or "battle" to go to...... the Marital Person has little to look forward to. I mean really.......... How does he keep his skills honed in all reality and know what technique works or doesn't work if there are not testing grounds or battle fields to attend and exercise all our new found skills........

:idunno:
 
Originally posted by Goldendragon7
Without a "war" or "battle" to go to...... the Marital Person has little to look forward to. I mean really.......... How does he keep his skills honed in all reality and know what technique works or doesn't work if there are not testing grounds or battle fields to attend and exercise all our new found skills........

:idunno:

Practice on war protesters ;)

Well, I guess we would be called warriors or soldiers then. Although, there are those that have to use their training, mostly for their job or just plain old self-defense. It's very rare that any of us will need to take our art to the point that we train to, which is kill, maim or rip off their arm to beat them with it.

edited to remove typos
 
Originally posted by Zoran
Practice on war protesters ;)

Well, I guess if we would be called warriors or soldiers then. Although, there are those that have to use their training, mostly for their job or just plain old self-defense. It's very rare that any of us will need to take our art to the point that we train to, which is kill, maim or rip their arm to beat them with it.

Zactly Z - Rex....... sometimes it gets downright depressin. I just want to tear something apart. LOL

:rofl:
 
Originally posted by Goldendragon7
Zactly Z - Rex....... sometimes it gets downright depressin. I just want to tear something apart. LOL

:rofl:

Oh, that's just a dinosaur trait Mr Conatsarous. :D

:rofl:
 
Originally posted by Goldendragon7
Zactly Z - Rex....... sometimes it gets downright depressin. I just want to tear something apart. LOL

:rofl:

Hey,

There's always next New Year's Eve...;)

jb:asian:
 
If a system/style doesn't incorporate at least medium contact and/or grappling with resisting opponents, it is not martial. Sports like boxing or Judo are very martial because not everyone can bob, weave, or parry a blow, while others can't slap out after going airborne with a nice o-goshi.

It is the training method(s) - NOT the system/style.

If everything is kata or choreographed, it is more artistic expression rather than martial.

Sharp Phil has a good article on this topic on his site. Click here:

http://www.philelmore.com/martial/martialout.htm
 

Latest Discussions

Back
Top