When does the art you take stop being that art

[ppko]

I have been thinking about this, after seeing the tradition question. To me most people dont practice any true traditional martial arts unless they are practicing there own. Let me explain, I have had two main teachers ( I have taken class with many people and seminars and taken some movements or philosophies with me) and when I teach I dont teach what anyone should call traditional anything, sure I teach the same katas I learned but I teach many drills in which don"t apply to the current arts I study. We are all told to make the art our own I have done this, and hopefully my students will do the same, so when does an art stop being Ryukyu Kempo, shotokan or jwhatever and become your art. What do you feel keeps the art that art, is it katas, is it teaching it the way it was originally taught?

 

[Kennedy_Shogen_Ryu]

Personally an art is still an art as long as you maintain the history. Katas are an important part of an art's history. If you teach the kata but not the history, then you're not staying true to the tradition, as katas were passed on from instructor to student as a way to keep the history of that particular art alive. One of my instructors teaches Shogen Ryu but he also teaches various aspects of other martial arts that he has been taught over the years. He makes sure that we know the difference between what is Shogen Ryu and what is, say, Praying Mantis. It's not that he isn't staying true to Shogen Ryu but rather, he is showing us that it's not the be all end all and that there are other techniques and other arts out there that are just as if not more efficient.

To sum up, to me, an art is no longer an art when you forget the history and the tradition that exists within that art. In my personal opinion!
​

 

[searcher]

I have been pondering this very question for many years and have brought it up on MT several times with little help in resolving my question.

It is kind of like baking a cake. You take several different parts and start blending them together. Eventually they stop being: eggs, flower, baking soda, etc., and they become cake batter. Then you put it in the oven and with a little time, you have a cake. This will probably not help you out, but it will, at the very least, give you something to think about.




UMMMMM..............Cake.

 

[ppko]

Two good replies, I believe in teaching the history but how far back because if you take shotokan for instance you go back to Gichen Funikoshi-Yasutsune (Ankoh) Azato-some believe Yasustune (Ankoh) Itosu, then their teacher Azato- Sokon Matusura, Itosu- Sokon Mastumura, Nagarama Chikudun (Peichin) then Masumura- Satunuku Sakugawa-Makabe Choken and it just keeps going did they all label there arts and when or if they did did there students not start their own even if that was there only teacher?

 

[tellner]

When the principles and form have changed so much that the majority of knowledgeable practitioners don't recognize it as the same thing anymore it's not the same thing. What constitutes "majority", "knowledgeable" and "recognize" is an entirely arbitrary social standard.

History? I could file off the serial numbers off of Sera and call it Oliver Shagnasty's Applied Combat Ballroom Dancing. If I taught it as I learned it with no mention of history or where it came from other Silat players would look at my student and say "Which of Steve Plinck's students taught you Sera?" People in Bandung would say "It looks like Sera. It's got way too many juru juru. It's got some serious Dutch influence. And this guy's teacher moved like, hmm, a large frog or toad. But it's definitely some sort of Sera."

Or I could change it to Cheez-Whiz on a cracker but push the History and Tradition like it was heroin and Iggy Pop was standing in front of me with ten thousand dollars. People would look at it and say "I've got no idea what this stuff is. It looks like crap, but he calls it Sera. The poor guy must have trained with Ellner"

At what point did they stop being tyrannosaurs and become birds?

 

[Danny T]

The human animal, structurally is the same no matter what nationality or race. This being true then isn’t reasonable that its movements would also be the same? Whether kicking, punching, kneeing, elbowing, stepping, squatting, bending, running, or whatever it is the same. Therefore wouldn’t most all good functional movements and positions be relatively the same? A wrist lock in China would be the same as a wrist lock in Brazil. The biggest differences I see in the many different training systems is the basic philosophy and methodology use to train. It is all movement of the human animal against the movement of another human animal. The art is the individual’s use of his/her body in a manner which will give them a greater advantage. The training system is the system used to train the mind and body to be the art. The individual art is the style.

We can do the same movements however since my body and mind is different from another then my style will be slightly different even though we use the same training system. Also on the same thought of movement; your usage of that same movement (applied Technique) may be entirely different than mine. For example, a punch is thrown you step and slip just to the outside of the punch, control the punch arm with your closest arm, turn facing toward the opponent striking the head with a horizontal elbow strike. I do the exact same movement however due to shorter legs I don’t step and slip as deeply as you and when I turn to face the opponent my horizontal elbow doesn’t strike the head but due to my controlling of the punch arm I now have an arm bar across my chest or shoulder from the same movement. Final technique is different but the movement was the same and from the same training system utilizing the same principles. As long as you uphold the principles; the underlying rules that govern the training method and its philosophy then it is still the same system and art.

Wing Chun for instance is a training system. Yip Man and Jiu Wan were two different instructor styles of using the wing chun system, and though I have learned through another instructor who learned through Jim Wan what I train in is still Wing Chun even though my applications and usage may be somewhat different.

Now if I were to take the very same movements using completely different principles to apply the movements I would no longer be doing Wing Chun but something totally different.

Hope this helps to not confuse you… too much!

Danny T

 

[jks9199]

When the principles and form have changed so much that the majority of knowledgeable practitioners don't recognize it as the same thing anymore it's not the same thing. What constitutes "majority", "knowledgeable" and "recognize" is an entirely arbitrary social standard.

History? I could file off the serial numbers off of Sera and call it Oliver Shagnasty's Applied Combat Ballroom Dancing. If I taught it as I learned it with no mention of history or where it came from other Silat players would look at my student and say "Which of Steve Plinck's students taught you Sera?" People in Bandung would say "It looks like Sera. It's got way too many juru juru. It's got some serious Dutch influence. And this guy's teacher moved like, hmm, a large frog or toad. But it's definitely some sort of Sera."

Or I could change it to Cheez-Whiz on a cracker but push the History and Tradition like it was heroin and Iggy Pop was standing in front of me with ten thousand dollars. People would look at it and say "I've got no idea what this stuff is. It looks like crap, but he calls it Sera. The poor guy must have trained with Ellner"

At what point did they stop being tyrannosaurs and become birds?

I'd have repped yo... but need to spread the love a bit.

Your art stops being your art when what you're doing is no longer representative of the style. This happens when you move away from the fundamental principles and techniques and do something different. For example, if you start with aikido, but add a few joint locks, or clean up the striking a bit... it's still aikido. (A chocolate chip cookie with M&Ms or peanuts is still a chocolate chip cookie at heart...) But, if you minimize the throws, and move linearly instead of circularly... It's not aikido. (A chocolate chip cookie made with oatmeal & raisins and no chocolate chip cookies isn't a chocolate chip cookie anymore.)

It's not typically going to be a clear line; there's plenty of room for variation and individualization in most styles (more in some than others, of course). And, sometimes, the only people that will see the difference are students of that style. But there comes a point when you change enough of something that it's not what you started with. I just built something for my wife; it started out as 12 feet of red maple. Somewhere over the last two days it metamorphisized from that to several pieces of recognizable furniture parts, and finally to the new base for her hopechest. When did that happen? I don't know exactly; it may have been when I cut them to length, or it may have been when I made the decorative cutouts. Or maybe it was when I put the pieces together... At some point before I was finished with the final assembly, there was no doubt what it was going to be -- but it wasn't there yet.

 

[Darth F.Takeda]

I study 3 arts (2 in the same Dojo) and I train in those arts, but all the things I learned before and all the personal adjustments and perogatives do help create my personal art and I think that's true of many martial artist.

I dont mean we all found our own systems, but if you have been doing the arts over the years, you will probably have some unique traits in how you move, even if they are not apparant right off.

When I was younger in TKD, I was told that I looked more like a JKD stylist than a TKD stylist when I fought. I used more hands than the average TKDer did, I tended to bob and weave and slip more than block, I liked low round kicks, check kicks and side kicks and I held my hands eithe like a boxer or like I used a Kenpo hand position I picked up.

I still did all the TKD forms, required techniques and all, but when I sparred it was me fighting, not a style.

The same is true now I strive to learn the arts as taught and when I teach I teach the same way, but I do some things differently when it's in real time.
I preserve the arts by training in them and passing them on as is, but I also train my own expression and that is what makes something an art, as oppossed to a system. JMO

 

[stone_dragone]

So one issue that is raised through this discussion (for me, at least) comes when that instructor, trained in a particular art continues to teach that art while adding elements from other educational experiences that he or she has had.

If at some point he or she will be teaching (arbitrarily) 51% base system, 19% additional information from source A and 30% additional information from source B.

The forms are called by the same names, the techniques are the same basic techniques, the movement, philosophy and emphasis are different from what he or she was taught by their instructor in the base system.

The previously mentioned majority of knowledgeable practitioners no longer recognize it as the same art, but because of a trend of "founders" being berated and belittled as new generation soke's, said teacher is terrified of calling his art anything else but what he learned.

Standard comments are "Its good, but since it's so different you can't call it X anymore" and "You must have an ego the size of Texas to think you can create your own style when you only have rank in Y."

So when a tyrannosaurus becomes a bird, is it a new species or a different style of big lizard?

 

[still learning]

Hello, We are ALL artist...each makes his own drawings...some very amaturish...others a professioal piece.

Any and all types of fighting is a skill to learn...traditional or not...is an art form!

THe Art can be in th eye of the holder? ..you may see it differently....Street fighting is an "ART" others may not see it that way?

When you create something? ....this is when "art" begins! Each of us can create their own way......most people do not fight exactly like each other.....even those who being with each other training for decades...find their own way...

What is "A martial artist" ....a person who learns self-defense/fighting skills/techniques call an "ART" ..the art of figthing....

Fishing, golfing can be an "art" too?)..the art of fishing....do you after hooking the fish? ....kick it or punch it?...or will a choke hold be enough?

Aloha

 

[bmcgonag]

I imagine most of the arts any of us study would be almost unrecognizeable to their respective founders.

Arts evolve, people evolve, techniques evolve to match the need of the times. If you can defend yourself (or win a tournament) effectively, then good job.

Brian

 

[Shotochem]

I have wondered ever since changing arts, what am I? What style? I don't really "feel" Shotokan anymore yet I do not really "feel" Kempo either. I have come to the realization that even though I may feel different, I am still both just a modified more mature version of my former self and art.

I have another student who trains with me that also cross-trains in Shotokan. Whenever she is back from school I help work her Shotokan material as I have trained quite a bit longer than she has and she is of lower ranking.

2 points I'd like to make on my rambling:

First I noticed that even though we are 2 different people from 2 different states and 2 different Shotokan organizations. Fundamentally in basics, movements and body mechanics we looked like we have trained together for years.

Second When I was videotaped preforming katas for her to practice, It looked like I had never left my Shotokan training. In fact I thought I would look 10 times worse.

My conclusion is that even though we may add more to our arts and training as long as we keep the pure fundamental basics and philisophical concepts of our respective arts they will never really be lost or watered down. Quality instruction will pass our respective arts on for many generations.

-Marc-