Is it the Artist or the Art?

[Water Dragon]

I say neither really. I think it has a lot more to do with your coaches training (not teaching) methods and the caliber and intensity of your fellow students/training partners. You can only get as good as the people you're training with.

discuss

[Ikken Hisatsu]

depends whether you're an introvert or an extrovert. an introvert doesnt need the people around him to even be there to train hard, whereas an extrovert draws on them to keep going (this is why 90% of the SAS is made up of introverts)

but yeah you might be the most hardout guy there is, if you have bad teaching it wont help you.

[norther practitioner]

concepts.. coach and artist.

[MasterKiller]

I have mixed feelings about this issue.

I think a good fighter is 99% of the time the product of good training intensity and proper conditioning.

I also believe there is a lot of crap being taught that significantly hinders a persons ability to fight.

[AshidaKimFan]

I would have to agree with WD to a certain degree. But I also think that pure aggression and the "I'm going to kick your a$$" attitude has to be there. Tank Abbot comes to mind, he's defeated MMA guys and so-called masters. Yes, he's been beaten, BUT guys who's beaten him actually came out after him in an aggressive manner, either that or they just waited until he ran out of gas.

[backbreaker]

The Muay thai people I have learned from would say the style is most important. Benny Urquidez was defeated by Muay thai so there. Kungfu does not have a proper gaurd with the hands up so they will be knocked out. So xinyi or "mindboxing" cannot win supposedly. Every xingyi guy I seen on the internet wants no part of fighting and just wants to pretend they are so intelligent. Punks. Screw them. Think their so intelligent. I don't really care, a loss is a loss, so WTF, why all politics and sticky hands ****? Just fight or you shouldn't say **** if you practice second hand styles or "official standardized" **** that these chinese everything "experts" who interfere practice. MMA rules, TMA sucks is the general consensus on internet forums, but most people don't care about martial arts anyways so who cares how adult or intelligent and "real" you think you are. There's some retarted **** in TMA , so do real stlyes like the 2000 year old fighting tradition of Muay Thai for standing, and a ground style , it's the future.:rolleyes:

[Water Dragon]

You reallly should take your meds like the nice doctor told you to backbreaker.

[AshidaKimFan]

you can borrow some of my meds, bro

[AshidaKimFan]

two asian women in an erotic position
























69
:D

[norther practitioner]

Kungfu does not have a proper gaurd with the hands up so they will be knocked out.

:rolleyes:

[Chang Style Novice]

This is a good example of why I consider fine arts and martial arts to be completely seperate.

In martial arts, only one thing counts - results. It doesn't matter how it happened, if the fight ends with you healthy and the other guy not so much, you win. Therefore it is neither the artist (physical and mental attributes) or the art (concepts, methods, techniques) that matters, it is only the artifact (a KO, a surrender, some debilitating injury.)

In fine arts, everything counts. Among the many things that a work of art is judged on include: the medium, the style, the history of the medium, the history of the style, techniques, ideas, clarity of communication, currrent fashions, the fame or lack thereof of the artist, the venue in which the art is presented, the opinions of critics, dealers and the public, etc.

In essence, fine arts is almost totally subjective, and martial arts are almost totally objective. I think it is a grievious error to misconcieve of either in terms of the other.

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
This is a good example of why I consider fine arts and martial arts to be completely seperate.

In martial arts, only one thing counts - results. It doesn't matter how it happened, if the fight ends with you healthy and the other guy not so much, you win. Therefore it is neither the artist (physical and mental attributes) or the art (concepts, methods, techniques) that matters, it is only the artifact (a KO, a surrender, some debilitating injury.)

In fine arts, everything counts.* Among the many things that a work of art is judged on include: the medium, the style, the history of the medium, the history of the style, techniques, ideas, clarity of communication, currrent fashions, the fame or lack thereof of the artist, the venue in which the art is presented, the opinions of critics, dealers and the public, etc.

In essence, fine arts is almost totally subjective, and martial arts are almost totally objective. I think it is a grevious error to misconcieve of either in terms of the other.It's true, but it only applies to the factors that determine victory in a fight. I disagree....to an extent. I've heard plenty of people say someone won a fight with low-level kung fu, or in modern terms, as a brawler....

While winning is ultimately the most important aspect of fighting, I believe there is room for self-expression in combat.

The ultimate goal of a good running back is to move the ball downfield....But Barry Sanders and Emmit Smith did this in completly different ways, and both were successful. Emmit had more yards and touchdowns, but who was a better running back?

[norther practitioner]

Anyone in a fight is a craftsman, the person who wins used his tools in a greater fassion. Someone who makes that look good is an artist. What you concider looking good, that is the question ;)

[Chang Style Novice]

To answer MK's question, anything besides yards and TDs is irrelevant to his worth as a running back. You can argue that since football is a spectator sport style and panache will count for the fans, but I'll bet if those fans see a spectacular run that nevertheless fails to score the winning touchdown they won't be talking much about the style and panache thereof. In any case, the good looks of the run are about showmanship and not football.

To answer NP's assertion, that's complete nonsense.

PS - I edited the last sentence out of the post that MK is quoting because it refers to a digression I made but decided against including, only somehow that sentence didn't get deleted with the rest of it. No big deal, but it didn't make a lot of sense without its context.

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
To answer MK's question, anything besides yards and TDs is irrelevant to his worth as a running back. You can argue that since football is a spectator sport style and panache will count for the fans, but I'll bet if those fans see a spectacular run that nevertheless fails to score the winning touchdown they won't be talking much about the style and panache thereof. In any case, the good looks of the run are about showmanship and not football.

To answer NP's assertion, that's complete nonsense.

PS - I edited the last sentence out of the post that MK is quoting because it refers to a digression I made but decided against including, only somehow that sentence didn't get deleted with the rest of it. No big deal, but it didn't make a lot of sense without its context. OK.....What determines if a piece of furniture is art? Its function or its form? I argue it's a little bit of both.

[norther practitioner]

To answer NP's assertion, that's complete nonsense.

That was the point.

[Chang Style Novice]

MK - Its function determines if it is furniture. Its form determines if it is art.

NP - Sorry - I'll have to adjust the gain on my sarcasmeter.

[MasterKiller]

CSN,
Are they mutually exclusive?

[norther practitioner]

Whats the difference between a craftsman and an artist?

Whats the difference between someone who puts together a very simple chair and the freak that calls putting a dot on a canvas art?

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by norther practitioner
Whats the difference between a craftsman and an artist?

Whats the difference between someone who puts together a very simple chair and the freak that calls putting a dot on a canvas art? Intent, for one. But I still don't think form and function are mutually exclusive.

[Chang Style Novice]

MK - of course not.

NP -

1 - A craftsman's goal is technical perfection whereas an artist's goal is creative expression. Kind of ephemeral, but that's how it goes.

2 - Pay scale.:p

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
MK - of course not.

NP -

1 - A craftsman's goal is technical perfection whereas an artist's goal is creative expression. Kind of ephemeral, but that's how it goes.

2 - Pay scale.:p Do you not feel any creative expression at all in Chang Style? If not, why does it look different than Muay Thai?

If they are not mutually exclusive, then where do you draw the line?

[Chang Style Novice]

Actually, thinking about art vis a vis craft in terms of fighting practices is pretty interesting. It got me to remembering that Roy Jones hands behind the back KO. His level of fighting craft was so much higher than his opponent's that he was able to pull off some creative expression with that showboating move. That's a great example of art entering into a martial context, so I'm going to adjust my view accordingly. I imagine Genki's flying triangle choke, or Cung Le's scissor kick would also fit in that category.

Is that the sort of thing you guys are getting at? If so, I still think that the artfulness of it is irrelevant to the fighting part. High skill in fighting allows this stuff to happen, but the fight is already effectively over by the time someone is confident enough in the outcome to try that kind of fanciness.

edit - Heh! I composed this before reading MK's last reply, but I think it answers his question.

Anyway, to answer what I didn't before - no, I don't feel any creative expression in Chang Style Taijiquan. Goals and correctness are much too rigidly defined for that. If I throw, I did it right. If I get thrown, I did it wrong. There's really no grey area at all.

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
Is that the sort of thing you guys are getting at? If so, I still think that the artfulness of it is irrelevant to the fighting part. High skill in fighting allows this stuff to happen, High Art requires a high level of technical skill, in most cases. Painting, writing, sculpture, piano, are not inherent to most individuals without a significant degree of training.


but the fight is already effectively over by the time someone is confident enough in the outcome to try that kind of fanciness. In a given situation, a jab can be as technically challenging as a flying arm bar. And no less beautiful.


Anyway, to answer what I didn't before - no, I don't feel any creative expression in Chang Style Taijiquan. Goals and correctness are much too rigidly defined for that. If I throw, I did it right. If I get thrown, I did it wrong. There's really no grey area at all. [/B] Do your throws look like Judo? Is Judo right or wrong because of that?

[norther practitioner]

There's really no grey area at all.

What about a stale mate...

and well, thanks guys, I was trying to see how you looked at this. as it applies to ma. There are skill sets to martial arts, as well as arts, and as well as crafts, just seeing if anyone would bring the discussion toward martial art vs. martial craft.

[Xebsball]

is it the ... ?
is it the ...?

its everything, silly boys

[Chang Style Novice]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
High Art requires a high level of technical skill, in most cases. Painting, writing, sculpture, piano, are not inherent to most individuals without a significant degree of training.Well, I dislike the term "High Art" because it implies superiority. I don't think that anything you name is superior to fighting skill, but I do think that because they have different goals they shouldn't be considered together. The term "fine art" has the same problem, but to a lesser degree in my view, which is why I prefer it. Perhaps something like "creative art" would be better still. Anyway, while the most exciting creative art does require technical excellence, even incompetent creative art - say, a kid's drawing - is in a different category and may be successful on its own subjective terms. These subjective terms don't really exist as far as I can percieve in MA.
In a given situation, a jab can be as technically challenging as a flying arm bar. And no less beautiful.I agree, but I think the beauty in this case would be an inadvertent byproduct of technical excellence, much like the way a well-designed suspension bridge is beautiful, but a work of engineering rather than art.
Do your throws look like Judo? Is Judo right or wrong because of that? My knowledge of judo (and for that matter chang style taijiquan) is very limited, but I'd say they resemble judo throws in some ways sometimes and are different from judo throws in some ways at other times. However, what ultimately determines correctness is not form, but results. Right=I'm up and he's down. Wrong=He's up and I'm down.

We gotta do this dance every three months or so, rain or shine, don't we?:D

[norther practitioner]

We gotta do this dance every three months or so, rain or shine, don't we

Yup, it wouldn't be kung fu magazine forums if we didn't...:D


I agree, but I think the beauty in this case would be an inadvertent byproduct of technical excellence, much like the way a well-designed suspension bridge is beautiful, but a work of engineering rather than art.

Yeah, but a picture of that bridge, by some famous photographer would still go for a couple of days salary for the guy who designed it (trust me I'm an engineer).

Oh, and if I ever design a bridge, don't drive it guys, structures was my worst class junior year (or was that fall of senior, see).

[Chang Style Novice]

That's what I'm saying: the photographer will make that bridge look better than in real life, but you don't want torely on a photo of a bridge to get you across a river.

Different goals, different methods, different results. And therefore, different criteria for success.

(although I did once make a sculpture that could most certainly be effectively used to bash heads in)

[Indestructible]

Both.
You can be really dedicated to a lousy art and still get your butt handed to you.
You can be lazy at a great art and still get your butt handed to you.
You need to work hard at a good art to kick butt. Unless you are naturally a kick butt fighter and then I hate you.

[AshidaKimFan]

MK - To answer your question....

Emmit Smith. Everyone knows that Texas has the best running backs. Tony Dorsett, and of course the best of all time: Earl Campbell...

:D

[Chang Style Novice]

AshidaKimFan has the best username since MusicalKataChamp.

[AshidaKimFan]

Thanks ChangStyleNovice. I'll take that as a compliment.

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by AshidaKimFan
MK - To answer your question....

Emmit Smith. Everyone knows that Texas has the best running backs. Tony Dorsett, and of course the best of all time: Earl Campbell...

:D Well, Emmitt had a pro-bowl line to open all those holes for him for 10 years, and Barry had the worst line in football during that same stretch; yet, when Barry retired after 9 seasons, it took Emmit 12 seasons to surpass his yards.....

Besides, everyone knows the best back to come out of Texas was Billy Simms, and he came to OU!

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
[B] These subjective terms don't really exist as far as I can percieve in MA. They do, though. Muay Thai striking is very simplistic when compared to CMA striking; yet, it is just as effective (some would argue moreso).


I agree, but I think the beauty in this case would be an inadvertent byproduct of technical excellence, much like the way a well-designed suspension bridge is beautiful, but a work of engineering rather than art. Yes, but form exceeding function is art....depending on your point of view. An abstract expressionist would argue that the artist cannot intentionally affect his audience anyway, and that the artist has no control over the perception of his work. So intent, for all intents and purposes, cannot always be the validating circumstance.


My knowledge of judo (and for that matter chang style taijiquan) is very limited, but I'd say they resemble judo throws in some ways sometimes and are different from judo throws in some ways at other times. However, what ultimately determines correctness is not form, but results. Right=I'm up and he's down. Wrong=He's up and I'm down. So are grapplers wrong for going down with the throw? Or Judoka, for that matter, when they pile-drive someone? What is the purely objective outcome of a clean throw if various styles don't always stay on their feet?

[AshidaKimFan]

yeah, forgot about Billy Simms, he WAS great...but I stand by my Earl Cambell statement as THE best :cool:

[Gangsterfist]

What determines the outcome of a fight between two people? Is it the style they use, or is it the pure ability of the fighter?

Answer: Both, but I would lean more towards the person. Like 30% style, 70% person.

Every person is not created equally. Some are better natural fighters, have better natural conditioning and so on and so forth. Now, some can work hard towards these feats and achieve them, and others can easily acheive them.

Not every martial art is created equal either. Tons of martial art styles have eloved and moved forward with the times, and some have stayed stubborn and not progressed at all. As we humans evolve we become smarter (hypothetically of course). With this new knowledge we change the way we train and change our style to be more effective and more effecient.

This is how I would break down a martial art on how effective it is:

1)what are its base principles and concepts. From a basic view does it look to be effective in real situations. This immediately would throw off drunken boxing, which IMO is not a practical martial art, there is too much special training involved.

2) Has it been combat tested? This means has it been used in actual combat and how was the outcome. Western boxing is very combat tested, look at all the boxing matches we have.

3) What was the outcome of the combat testing? Was it effective?

Now of course since we are dealing with actual humans here results may vary from person to person.

Someone mentioned how simple and yet effective muy thai was. That to me right there says, hey this is a good style. Its simple so its easy to pick up on the basics, and its effective (combat tested).

Now lets look at the individual. Lets say two people approximately the same size, and age train 5 years in muy thai (I will just use muy thai again as an example). The first guy does physical, cardio, and conditioning work outs along with this martial arts training. The second guy just trains and does miminal exercise to just get by.

Now put them both in the ring and have them fight. Now since they are both using the same style, we cannot count that as a factor. My money would be on the guy who did all the work outs and conditioning versus the guy who just exercised to get by.

So, mainly it really depends on what you put into your Gung Fu. If you put lots of hard work into it, you will get better results.

To make one last comment about style, I hate it when people get all elitist about their style. They claim it has all this science and structure behind it. Well let me let you all in on something. Almost every single martial arts system has its own structure and science behind it. No style is the ultimate. Some may be better than others, but that does not make it the best. Do not get jaded by your own style of kung fu, and realize that what you take from form work and apply to real life will be changed, is never exact, and sometimes not very applicable in real life situations. So when you break it down its really about the fighter not the art. Not to mention all the champions in UFC, K-1, and all that MMA stuff are typically people who cross train.

Oh, and isn't art just an expression? A way to express one's self? Can you not express yourself through kung fu?

Here is the literal english definition of art:

art1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ärt)
n.

1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
2.
1. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
2. The study of these activities.
3. The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.
3. High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.
4. A field or category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature.
5. A nonscientific branch of learning; one of the liberal arts.
6.
1. A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building.
2. A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods: the art of the lexicographer.
7.
1. Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker; the blacksmith's art.
2. Skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties: “Self-criticism is an art not many are qualified to practice” (Joyce Carol Oates).
8.
1. arts Artful devices, stratagems, and tricks.
2. Artful contrivance; cunning.
9. Printing. Illustrative material.

I think kung fu is definately an art.

I got the definition from here (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=art)

[Chang Style Novice]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
They do, though. Muay Thai striking is very simplistic when compared to CMA striking; yet, it is just as effective (some would argue moreso).I don't follow how this relates to what I wrote. Can you clarify?
Yes, but form exceeding function is art....depending on your point of view. An abstract expressionist would argue that the artist cannot intentionally affect his audience anyway, and that the artist has no control over the perception of his work. So intent, for all intents and purposes, cannot always be the validating circumstance.Well, setting aside the issue of whether you're misunderstanding abstract expressionism (I think you are, but it's not particularly relevant here) I agree. Form exceeding function does qualify as art, and that's why I made my post about showboating above.
So are grapplers wrong for going down with the throw? Or Judoka, for that matter, when they pile-drive someone? What is the purely objective outcome of a clean throw if various styles don't always stay on their feet? Oh, come on. I thought it was obvious that I was oversimplifying for clarity. A powerful throw is a debilitating technique is all. Any way you take the fight out of your opponent is equally valid because the object of MA is to end fights as quickly and effectively and finally as possible. I only chose throws because you were asking about my art, and it's one where dumping your opponent on the floor is emphasized. A KO punch or a choke or jointlock or leg-smashing kick or whatever could replace a throw just as easily. What matters is who's still fighting and who ain't. That's a criterion that cuts across stylistic boundaries and readily percieved by any sensible participant or observer. (Not counting Helio Gracie and other super-macho types who won't surrender when they're obviously whipped.;)

[Chang Style Novice]

Gangsterfist - that is actually 9 different (but related) definitions of art. I'm trying to say that kungfu belongs in #7, as distinct from literature, painting, music, etc, which fit into #4. I believe masterkiller would claim it qualifies as both.

[Gangsterfist]

Thats the whole definition I got from the dictionary.

[MasterKiller]

CSN,
I meant to type Deconstructionist Theory instead of abstract expressionist. I had two ideas going in my head and wrote that pretty fast while tending to a sick baby, and didn't have to time to come back and edit once I realized my mistake. I'm at home with her today and don't have much time, so I'll try to expound a little more tomorrow.

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
Gangsterfist - that is actually 9 different (but related) definitions of art. I'm trying to say that kungfu belongs in #7, as distinct from literature, painting, music, etc, which fit into #4. I believe masterkiller would claim it qualifies as both. I think there are many definitions of art, and many forms of expression. I would say fighting (not just kung fu) fits #7, #6, and maybe #3.

This is just one of those points we are going to have to agree to disagree on.

[Chang Style Novice]

MK -

I refuse to agree to disagree on this. I insist that we disagree to agree!:p :rolleyes:

As you know, definitions - especially definitions of stuff that's important to me - are a little hobby horse of mine and I have to ride it every once it a while. It's fun, and almost always gives me something new to think about. Don't feel obliged to keep going if it's gonna take time away from important family and healing/training obligations.

[AshidaKimFan]

CSN you ride a hobby horse? I just saw some really cool colorful ones at Wal Mart yesterday!!!

[FatherDog]

Originally posted by AshidaKimFan
Tank Abbot comes to mind, he's defeated MMA guys and so-called masters.

Tank Abbot was an amateur boxer and a long-time high school wrestler; he had a solid skill-base to start from.

Of course, his lack of continued training and dedication resulted in him being pwned by every serious fighter he faced.

[Xebsball]

last times tank tried to fight with todays pro he got owned
tank has no power on todays mma

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
MK -

I refuse to agree to disagree on this. I insist that we disagree to agree!:p :rolleyes:

As you know, definitions - especially definitions of stuff that's important to me - are a little hobby horse of mine and I have to ride it every once it a while. It's fun, and almost always gives me something new to think about. Don't feel obliged to keep going if it's gonna take time away from important family and healing/training obligations. You're the resident artists here, so I'll take your opinions to heart. I tend to be a little elitist when it comes to what I consider art. When I don't like something, I just don't like it, and I'm quick to dismiss, usually. So anything I argue is really coming from that very me-centric point of view.

[Chang Style Novice]

Dude, given the fact you've actually written a novel and gotten it published you're perfectly qualified to spout your opinions of fine arts and there relationship to martial arts. In fact, I figure our respective persuits in our respective fields are the main reason we're the only regulars who care to argue about this.

Besides, you dig Motherwell, and that gets plenty of bonus points.

['MegaPoint]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
Well, Emmitt had a pro-bowl line to open all those holes for him for 10 years, and Barry had the worst line in football during that same stretch; yet, when Barry retired after 9 seasons, it took Emmit 12 seasons to surpass his yards.....

Besides, everyone knows the best back to come out of Texas was Billy Simms, and he came to OU!

Emmit is great, but Barry was greater.

Priest Holmes, San Antonio, Texas (big ups!), that's all I gots to say. He IS and WILL be better than Billy Simms, when it's all said and done.

[SevenStar]

Back to the original topic for a sec...

many agree that it's the artist and not the art. BUT, why is it that some arts have a reputation of consistently developing proficient exponents, while others do not? For example, bjj and tkd. There are good tkd guys out there, but which art has the rep of putting out better fighters?

Okay, now back to talking about art and football. :D

[Chang Style Novice]

Well, that's simply because you get better at what you spend time practicing. BJJ types fight more in class than TKD types, so they get better at it.* It has more to do with how the art is practiced than the content of its techniques - at least if the techniques aren't hopelessly dumb.

* Broad but hopefully not too inaccurate generalization.

[SevenStar]

so it IS the training methods...normally when I say that, I catch flak about it.

BTW, nice avatar.

[Chang Style Novice]

Who gives you flak about that? I would think it was obvious.

And thanks. But what do you mean "slow of mind?"

[SevenStar]

several - usually when I comment on the training format of CMA vs MMA.

[SevenStar]

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
But what do you mean "slow of mind?"


:D