When is it no longer a martial art?

[J. Pickard]

A thread in the TKD forum got a little off topic, but was still interesting, so I thought I would start/continue the conversation as it's own post.
When does a martial art stop being a martial art and become a performance art? I think this is an interesting point of conversation because even dance can have benefits to improving combat skills (improved flexibility, balance, strength, etc.) Breaking down the words "Martial Arts", the phrase seems to have been coined sometime in the 1500s and comes from the Latin words for Skill or Craft (ars) and war/combat (Martialis). Based on this, for something to be a martial art it needs to show a skill in combat.

Where I think things get interesting, is many historically famous military generals and martial artists practiced other art forms to hone their craft that seemingly have nothing to do with combat. Many swordman in Japan and China practiced calligraphy to harmonize the mind and body, there are records of Medieval knights practicing dance while wearing armor, games like chess and go were used to learn and understand strategy and reading your opponent. So what is and what isn't a martial art? Is it dependent on the method of training or is it more about the intent of the training? Can something like dance or art be considered a martial art if that is the intent behind the training? Thoughts?

 

[skribs113 133]

The etymology of "art" in martial arts is the same as the etymology of the word "art" by itself. Performance is a skill. Artistry in general is a skill.

This to me seems more people trying to nitpick a definition so that it only includes the skills they deem "worthy" of training or discussion.

It's the same as the folks who try to get out of traffic tickets by claiming, "I'm not driving, I'm traveling." They're using an incorrect definition of "driving" based on pseudo-etymology to make their argument.

 

[J. Pickard]

d

The etymology of "art" in martial arts is the same as the etymology of the word "art" by itself. Performance is a skill. Artistry in general is a skill.

Did you read the whole post? I don't think you did. If you did you would see that I made this exact point. The topic of discussion isn't on what is and isn't an art, it's what makes a martial art a martial art. Given arts like dance, drawing, poetry, and calligraphy were common tools to improve ones martial skills historically and even today, my question that I am interested in discussing with others is where the line is drawn, if at all. Is the method or the intent behind the training that defines something as a martial art? Or is it something else entirely?

 

[Gyakuto114 123]

The definition of a Japanese martial art is one devised and used in lethal combat (battle, for example) by the Japanese martial elite - buke (武家) (Traditions -Dave Lowry. Tuttle Publishing, First Edition p57-61 ‘Karate-The Martial Art that’s not, Pt 1 & 2’). By extension, I’d suggest substituting Chinese/Filipino/Korean etc might fulfil the definition for those nations, but this is pure conjecture on my part.

Thus almost everything we call a ‘martial art’ and discuss on this forum is a currently a performance art albeit based, in the past, upon actual martial arts.

Where I think things get interesting, is many historically famous military generals and martial artists practiced other art forms to hone their craft that seemingly have nothing to do with combat. Many swordman in Japan and China practiced calligraphy to harmonize the mind and body,

I sometimes wonder if they did these things just to make themselves look busy in times of peace, to the people paying their salaries. “ What do you mean I’m just painting with a brush? I’m forging my martial spirit to be a better warrior for you through the way of calligraphy/tea/drinking sake”

there are records of Medieval knights practicing dance while wearing armor,

An early form of weight trading and mobility perhaps?

games like chess and go were used to learn and understand strategy and reading your opponent.

Gary Kasparov should be a military advisor, in that case! Chess really bores me.

So what is and what isn't a martial art? Is it dependent on the method of training or is it more about the intent of the training? Thoughts?

It all depends upon your definition of a martial art and whether we adhere to an ‘official definition’ or one we like to believe because it’s how we feel… a bit like the gender politics wars going on right now. Personally, I think what most of us practise today are ‘sporting combat arts’ and delightful they are too!

 

[windwalker099114 144]

The topic of discussion isn't on what is and isn't an art, it's what makes a martial art a martial art.

When they are actually practiced and used in warfare—in the literal sense of the art of war—they are truly martial.

Once they are no longer developed or applied for that purpose, as is the case with most activities now called “martial arts,” the term becomes more symbolic than literal.

What remains are physical and cultural practices shaped by earlier histories and contexts, rather than methods actively refined for war.

 

[wab25]

I think intent has a lot to do with it.

Every morning, I see people out running....

Some are running to keep healthy and in shape. Some are running to prepare for another sporting activity (soccer, marathon, basket ball....). Some are doing their road work for the combat art that they study. There will be subtle differences in their running, due to the different intent that each has.

Many NFL players train in ballet. But their intent is to improve their football game. No, you probably can't take a dancer from swan lake and put him on a football field and expect great things out of him.... but, you can take a good football player, put him on a ballet floor, and then see better results on the football field because of it. In this way, ballet becomes part of the football training program.... even though ballet by itself won't make you into a football player, it can make a football player into a better football player.

 

[Tony Dismukes112 8]

Despite the etymology of the word "martial", the term "martial arts" has been used for civilian combative practices as well as battlefield-relevant fighting skills for just about as long as it has been a part of the English language. It has never been used exclusively for battlefield arts and in fact has long since fallen out of favor for describing any sort of military training. Trying to redefine the term away from centuries of usage based on etymology is, IMO, a bit silly and pointless.

The overwhelming majority of currently practiced martial arts were never battlefield arts. Even most of those that make pretensions of having been battlefield arts are at best derived from secondary, supplemental training for soldiers.

As far as the original question, I'm mostly a descriptivist rather than a prescriptivist in terms of language. If practitioners consider something they do to be a martial art, I'm not going to argue with them. Like most other things, it's a category with fuzzy boundaries anyway. For my own personal usage, I use "martial art" to refer to a system designed for fighting or a practice derived from such a system. The further it gets away from that combative intention, the less I think of it as a martial art.

 

[Tony Dismukes112 8]

For those nerdy enough to care about the etymology of the term and the history of its usage in English, this is pretty extensive: Martialists and the "Arts of Mars"

 

[Badhabits]

Dang, tough question. I also started to say intent, but after thinking about it... I think you can practice a martial art without the intent of ever using it to hurt someone (health etc) but still be practicing a martial art nonetheless. Then I thought when what you practice no longer contains all the nuts and bolts needed to actually use it to hurt people. But maybe that's not right- cardio kickboxing doesn't teach you to fight and the intent is exercise not hurting people, but it's not performance art. Maybe if what you practice doesn't have all the nuts and bolts and no intent to hurt people and your primary concern is artistic??
Arg. My brain hurts

 

[Tony Dismukes112 8]

Here's a cool example of something which legitimately meets the standard of a traditional martial art in the sense of an actual battlefield art.

 

[Kung Fu Wang114 144]

what makes a martial art a martial art.

What make MA a MA is when you (general YOU) train MA, you should always explain clearly about what your hands are doing and also what your legs are doing.

For example, when you pull your opponent's arm, you will use on hand to hold on his wrist, and use the other hand to hold on his elbow. In order to make this arm pulling work, you will need to satisfy the following conditions:

1. Your palms should face opposite direction (for example, your right palm may face down while your left palm face up.
2. The distance between your hands should be exactly the forearm width.
3. Both of your hands should move toward the same direction.

The following video doesn't make sense. It doesn't meet requirement 1. So, he may claim he is doing MA. But his movement shows he is not doing MA.

 

[windwalker099114 144]

The following video doesn't make sense. It doesn't meet requirement 1. So, he may claim he is doing MA. But his movement shows he is not doing MA.

View attachment 33820

Not a fair conclusion. The video shows practice of the 37-step Taiji form by it's creator CMC. Traditionally it's used to develop Taiji body method and related skills.

A solo form clip cannot demonstrate fighting ability, but it also cannot justify the claim that the person is not training, since form work itself is a recognized mode of Taiji training. What is developed depends on the practitioner’s intent, level, and rigor of practice, none of which can be determined from a short solo demonstration.

For comparison, example of how some of the same movements can be expressed
in partner work, depending on training intent:

 

[Kung Fu Wang114 144]

A solo form clip cannot demonstrate fighting ability, but it also cannot justify the claim that the person is not training

If you can't explain what you are doing and make MA application sense, you no longer are doing MA.

In your opinion, what's CMC's MA application in this video?

 

[windwalker099114 144]

In your opinion, what's CMC's MA application in this video?

It isn’t an application in the immediate combative sense, but an expression of Taiji principles through solo movement.
In Taiji, principle and application aren’t separate—the solo work develops the internal conditions from which application is expected to arise in partner work, even when not shown in a solo clip.

If you can't explain what you are doing and make MA application sense, you no longer are doing MA.

Whether something can be explained in a way that makes immediate application sense often depends on the experience and reference points of the person receiving the explanation.

In many martial traditions, certain skills are understood developmentally and become clear through practice rather than description alone. The difficulty in explaining something verbally does not necessarily mean it is no longer martial—only that it may not yet be accessible through words.

 

[Flying Crane]

If you can't explain what you are doing and make MA application sense, you no longer are doing MA.

In your opinion, what's CMC's MA application in this video?

View attachment 33821

I could take any four-second clip from any video, devoid of any context, and holler about how it has no martial significance. That is disingenuous and pretty bad form. I see this thread is turning into another “I hate Taiji” rant. Grow the f u c k up.

 

[Holmejr13 12]

I think it stops being an art when it stops meaning anything to you. You stop growing or it becomes mundane. Otherwise it is just military training, simply an exercise.

In middle school in the 60’s I had lost a couple towel fights in the locker room after gym class. My dad showed me a secret way of folding a towel that made it a formidable weapon, especially with a wet end. That weekend I practiced folding and deploying. Needless to say, my next test of skills went decisively my way. I had raised the art of towel combat to a new level. And in my own way, I mastered it. Of course it also came with a trip to the vice principals office that brought a quick end to the art…lol.

By the way, the first time I got knocked out was sparring with a TKD guy. I blocked the back fist, but not the foot that was following it!! Yikes.

 

[drop bear114 53]

A martial art doesn't have to actually work though. And there is no clear definition of working anyway.

So. I assume people just say something is a martial arts and therefore it is one.

So the next question is. What is a weasel word?

 

[isshinryuronin4 3]

A martial art doesn't have to actually work though.

I can't embrace this statement, though it may depend on the definition of "work." IMO, a martial art must work in a martial way - being effective in some sort of combat.

While an MA, especially a TMA, contains elements of spirit and fitness along with self-defense, when the emphasis is not directly combat related, the art is no longer martial. When the primary goal is spiritual, philosophical, exercise, or entertainment (God forbid!) the martial aspects/effectiveness can't help but suffer. It becomes an activity that mimics MA to accomplish something else.

For me, the answer to the OP's question is clear.

 

[drop bear114 53]

I can't embrace this statement, though it may depend on the definition of "work." IMO, a martial art must work in a martial way - being effective in some sort of combat.

While an MA, especially a TMA, contains elements of spirit and fitness along with self-defense, when the emphasis is not directly combat related, the art is no longer martial. When the primary goal is spiritual, philosophical, exercise, or entertainment (God forbid!) the martial aspects/effectiveness can't help but suffer. It becomes an activity that mimics MA to accomplish something else.

For me, the answer to the OP's question is clear.

Ok. Then the second part comes in to play. Where you have to determine working.

 

[Gyakuto114 123]

Most opinions here are leaning towards the the idea of ‘…it’s what you feel…’. I personally feel uncomfortable with subjective opinions much preferring the objective type, but of course the latter requires difficult-to-identify, objective supporting evidence. My next thought is, does it really matter? Perhaps we should just call them

‘Combat-Origin Martial & Battlefield Ancestral Traditions’ or C.O.M.B.A.T.

or

‘Historical Ancestral Combat Knowledge Systems’ H.A.C.K.S.

or

‘Playfighting Origins of Warfare’ P.O.W.

or

‘Ancestral Rough Games of Humans‘ A.R.G.H.

MMA could be called: ‘Historically Imitative Scuffling’ H.I.S.


On reflection, gun shooting is probably the only true, extant martial art (in those countries where they are allowed to be carried to potentially kill others). To give it a cool, tradition-infused Japanese name, ‘Tanegashima’!