The term "ART" is usually reserved for less physical activities like painting or music etc, and lets face it, "martial arts" is a very generic term covering a huge variety of activities.
So, from your perspective, do you consider what YOU do "ART"?
And why?
Oh, and what DO you do, ie. what style and what type of training do you do?
What makes YOU an "artist"?

Haha Ive got a feeling this one could very deep!


For me the art side of things is the self expression.

I dont think you can seperate the artist from his work (his art)

They are one and the same.

Finally! A topic with some finesse. Kudos to John for giving the MartialEdge users something to think about.

Before I answer your question I should really point out there will always be strong differences of opinion regarding topics like this, and the sooner people appreciate and grow tolerant of it, the sooner your own opinions will materialise into something concrete.

The short and somewhat dismissive answer to your question would quite simply be no. Not all martial arts are arts. Some lean more towards fitness, sport, and point scoring (competitions etc) and others have a deep seated, holistic base and take a strong, ethical direction.

I suppose in that respect you could classify the 'Art' in Martial Art by examining the continued use of tradition. Meditation, repetition, kata, thought before action etc etc. These virtues and principles are what defines Martial 'Art' for me. But that's not to say in combat the others are not equally if not more effective.

However, combat prowess is certainly not one of the essential criteria for Martial 'Art'. Knowing how to punch someone doesn't add to your character, or aid your judgement. If anything such a skill on it's own would do more to impede those virtues.

I could argue this forever, but what I will say is the one defining characteristic in my opinion is self satisfaction, if practicing your art is a rewarding experience, and it gives you a feeling of satisfaction and pride, then it's worthy of the term art. And you the term artist.

Peace

Liu Shui Dao wrote:

However, combat prowess is certainly not one of the essential criteria for Martial 'Art'.

Some people would argue the opposite;



Matt was published as saying something along the lines of "A Martial Arts master should be able to prove their ability"

Then of course, you look at people like Cus D'amato.
Somehow he knew what he was doing and his students did the proof work. See Tyson for details.

I hear your point, however I can't help but find the notion of "practitioners having to prove their ability" quite ignorant. Why is it that Tai Chi has lasted so long? It's because it doesn't need to prove itself. It's never had to. Taiji practitioners are more than happy doing their own thing, for health more than fighting.

But when it is adapted to suit a combative need... Pete will tell you, when he sparred Chris Crudelli, he learnt a good few things about the functionality of Tai Chi. In my opinion, for the art in martial art to have any validity, it should put internal virtues first, before combat. In the old days of the Shaolin temple, the youngest monks spent the first years doing chores, no martial art. Just meditation, sweeping, cleaning etc. The ones that got impatient were booted out. They were screened for dedication and character. Don't see that anymore.

And as for martial artists and teachers having to prove their ability, I refer you to my topic: "When the student is better than the teacher..." As most of the opinion on that was that teachers, even when their students physically succeed them, still hold their ground as teachers because of experience, knowledge and wisdom.

Martial - The combatative, physical side.
Art - The spiritual, graceful side. Martial has no place in Art, and Art no place in Martial. They exist alongside one another.

An interesting quote from the video that doesn't quite flow with yours: "...Not just fighting, but any functional atheletic training can serve as a deep and meaningful vehicle..." I didn't once in that video hear him say "people must prove their ability".

Liu Shui Dao wrote:

Martial - The combatative, physical side.
Art - The spiritual, graceful side. Martial has no place in Art, and Art no place in Martial. They exist alongside one another.

An interesting quote from the video that doesn't quite flow with yours: "...Not just fighting, but any functional atheletic training can serve as a deep and meaningful vehicle..." I didn't once in that video hear him say "people must prove their ability".
Like I said, he was "published" as saying that.
I'll dig around and see if I can find the article.

I'm sure he may have done, seems like he just contadicted himself there...

Like I said, there will always be differences of opinion and there will always be ignorant martial artists. It's just knowing when to let them think they're right and move on

It depends on the definition of art.

Despite having never been to uni(!), I find beautiful things around me every day. Sometimes it's a reflection on a window or a bird singing; sometimes it's a random flower on a random doorstep. Even something that on the outside doesn't appeal can be beautiful.

Art, to me, is about perfect timing or balance; something that engages the heart and mind.

Something that makes you say 'wow' - whether you like it or you hate it.

I'm a novice tae kwon-do student but I find the art in the perfection of movement, combining timing, technique and balance. Okay, so I'm no artist! But striving towards that and watching others do the same makes me go 'wow'.

Having always wanted to dance but being a tomboy at heart, tae kwon-do is one of the happiest places I'm at with fluid movement, strength and power all in one.

But getting back to the question, all martial arts CAN be 'art'. There are moments of perfection and synchronicity in all martial arts - but there comes a time when every artist has to put down his brush or he overdoes it.... ie there is a line that, when crossed, render the situation more martial than art.

Here are a couple of views;

The term "Martial Arts" is derrived from the Japanese word bujutsu, or "warrior skills". And while there are many peripheral skills a warrior needs, fighting is the first and foremost; the rest are just there to support the end goal of killing the enemy.

Several people have covered all of this already, but this needs to be said:

Over the years, we've found that people who go out of their way to argue that fighting is not or should not be the primary focus of the martial arts, generally can't fight and/or are afraid of putting themselves in harm's way to develop true skills. They want the recognition and glory of being martial artists without the pain and risk. It's the "it's not whether you win or lose but how you play the game" mentality (why bother keeping score?), which when it comes to fighting and self defense is not only unrealistic, but can have downright fatal consequences.

So no, if you don't do continuous, full contact sparring as a regular part of your martial art, we generally don't consider you to be a real martial artist because you're not really learning how to fight. You're a hobbyist at best, and a LARPer at worst. There's nothing wrong with either of these things on their own, as long as you're up front and honest about that being your level of participation. But most of the time that's not the case, and people are training for the image of being a Martial Artist, without the substance of actually being one.

Clear distinctions need to be drawn because frauds and poseurs thrive in the fuzzy spaces between the public's understanding of a thing, and the reality of the thing itself.

The reply;

are Martial Arts about fighting? or is fighting just an activity that is associated with Martial Arts?

I fully agree that if you are training in MA's and you hope to be effective in whatever arena you need to apply your skills (be that military/domestic security, competition or personal safety) then if a person deceives themselves that their skills are effective, if they don't have some validation that their training is appropriate for the arena they are training for, then something is seriously wrong.

But lets be honest here, you don't need martial arts to be a good a fighter. I've know countless people over the years who have never been in a MA's dojo in their lives, but they are devastating fighters. Where did they get their skills from? Most of them were people who did physically demanding manual labour, so they had fitness and endurance which comes from working the body for 9-10 hrs a day, 5-6 days a week, so that explains their hardiness and endurance. But where did their skills come from? I'm not talking about people who trained to fight in anyway, but when they found themselves in strife, they got stuck in and just fought naturally and effectively.

I'd be surprised if most of us couldn't bring such people to mind from our own lives.

Man has been fighting man since 'man' came into being. It really isn't that big a deal, but despite this, this strange phenomenon of the 'Martial Arts' came into being. Why? Does our species need a codified set of procedures to instill in us the skills of 'fighting'? Or we do we just need to provide conditions which are sufficiently (but not overwhemingly) threatening (to physical well-being or pride) such that a person will draw upon their natural instincts to defend themselves physically?

My limited experience of wandering around various towns and cities, bars and clubs, gigs and festivals over the last 15 or so years is that fighting is just something which people do when their relationship with the world around them deems it neccesary.

You don't need a 'Martial Art' to become a good fighter, although, undeniably, like any activity, if you focus upon it, limited gains can be made. The extent of the gain being more a reflection on the individual than the system.

Given all that, I can only conclude that there is much more to Martial Arts than the mere development of 'fighting prowess'. But let me qualify that statement by suggesting that if you are not working hard on the physical apects of improving oneself as a fighter (with methods which incorporate 'progressive resistance', 'aliveness' and all the other buzz-words which are currently in vogue), then any exploration into the deeper aspects of the arts will not bear much fruit.

But that doesn't mean people should be precluded from pursuing the Martial Arts in any manner they wish. I'm not on a mission to save the world or its inhabitants. In my book, people are free to pursue the MA's as they please. It isn't for me to dictate the bounds of a discipline or try to impose my view on others. Whats right for me won't be right for everyone.

Equally, if we train to give ourselves an advantage, why do we need to level the field? I can only think of one reason, which is that by amassing a collective which thinks the same, beliefs become facts. And facts provide a form of mental security.

I'm happy being a 'culture of one'.

You say you don't understand why people would seek harmony in an activity where we learn to hurt people? Then all I can do is ask; Have you tried listening to people who do and reflecting deeply on what they say?

Who said anything about harmony being forced? I take it you are implying that the TOS on *** tries to enforce harmony? I think you have grossly missed the purpose of the TOS. From the time I've been here, I don't think 'harmony' is the goal of ***, I always understood it to be 'community'. People with vastly different points of view interact on here and often there is very little politeness. To me the TOS just tries to promote decency. Why shout and swear at someone? There is enough of that in daily life. Why state openly that someone is a fool, if it is clear that they are behaving like one? How often will people in the middle of a row, upon being called an idiot suddenly stop and go.. you know, I am a worthless piece of junk, thanks for pointing that out to everyone... ? More likely they'll just twist their panties round their balls and start acting like more of a fool. Great for entertainment purposes, but lousy for debate.

Finally on the matter of respect. There is only one type of respect that is genuine. Respect for yourself. If you truely respect yourself, respect for others flows naturally.

Firstly. How can anyone say that the term Martial Arts come from the japanese word meaning Warrior skills? Does that mean that all martial arts come from Japan? I would have said that the term actually comes from the English word "martial" which could be said to mean fighting arts, but I think would be more accurate to say that it has a military meaning and usually means fighting in defence of ones nation. So martial arts may be the art of defending ones nation. But there it is again..that term "defence". Defence, in my view anyway, does NOT mean fighting. A "fight" (see another question on this site) is where two or more people are simply trying to hurt each other. In my view when there is a higher moral reason (even though this may somtimes be misguided) this is not a fight.
However, as soon as you apply the term "art" I think that what you do changes. Art is something done to express oneself, or to get a point over.
Sure, aspects of martial art CAN be used in self defence or in fights, but this does not make self defence or fighting martial arts.
If you want to be good at fighting then yes, you would need to particpate in absolutely no-rules full contact fighting. But I would suggest that this is not a sensible course of action.
So to say that to be a real martial artist you must take part in such activities is an insult to the millions of real martial arts practitioners out there who are pursuing their art.

LOL.
Dontcha just lurrrrv circular discussions.

When I say it's a 'circular discussion', those posts came from a thread with something like 500 inconclusive posts all trying to define what 'art' and 'fight' actually were.

**jasondainter: This post has been censored as it has been decided that it violates one of our two forum rules which can be found at: http://www.martialedge.net/forum/rules/. This decision is final and will not be revoked. Please take this opportunity to familiarise yourself with our rules to avoid this happening again and (in the case where rules are being repeatedly broken) to avoid your account being permanently suspended. Thank you.**

Now, to digress slightly in the direction of your very interesting cut and paste job; Your friend is right in suggesting a link between "Bujutsu" and Martial Art. The words could be considered to have slightly similar connotations at a stretch, but that's where the similarities end.

"Martial Art" is a western term that originally came into use during the late 1800s after it was introduced (and possibly coined) by Edward Barton-Wright. The term was meant to generically cover the philosophical and technical aspects of both popular western styles (namely boxing) and his experiences from his time in Japan.

Nothing to do with "Warrior Skills" I'm afraid...

As for the definition of 'Art' in the martial context, Jinxi pretty much covered my sentiments on this matter.

My input on this topic is over.

Peace.