Create vs. Formulate?

[Mulong]

Curious, do we actually create new styles or do we formulate new interpretations, which we simply renamed?

[Judge Pen]

It's a question of semantics isn't it? On a fundamental level, there's only so many ways to punch, kick, throw and lock. In that regard, everything is an interpretation.

I suppose the real difference in interpretation and creation is identifying a set of core principles and building a style around those principles in an efficacious manner. But, even then, I'm pretty sure you would be either recycling principles from existing styles (with a spin of course) or creating an ineffective art based upon techniques and principles that have fallen by the wayside after years of trial and error.

[Mulong]

Very true Judge Pen... :D

[David Jamieson]

I agree with pen. There isn't really anything left to create except for more and more obscure weapons. :p

New stuff should be driven by principles of course and the sequencing of sets is altered all the time. Thre are basically no sets out there that are in their original form. In fact, with the first transmission from one to another, the form changes and so on and so on.

It's like copying copies. Eventually the original is faded but for the most rudimentary of shapes.

It is up to the practicioners to make there work out effective for them and the techniques effective through trial and error. That's how it's always been.

Freeflow and command of principles is much more important to ones kungfu than being able to mimic your teacher.

[TenTigers]

I play my Hung Kuen differently than many people out there. To some, I might be doing something new. To others, I might be doing something the way it was done several generations back. Do I now re-name it? No. I call it Hung Kuen. Will the others be receptive to it? Probably not. They will most likely say what I am doing is NOT Hung Kuen. That I'm doing it wrong. Gwok Si, Gwok Faht. Each Sifu has his own interpetation of his style.
Now, prepare yourselves to witness my Drunken Taichi Hung-Ga !!!!!
(jes kidding. actually it's my Drunken Bot Gua Hung-Ga Grappling!)
Joi BotGua HungKuen Suet Gok...um, P'ai? :eek:

[hskwarrior]

If I may jump in......

Let's say my sifu is the only one left that has the whole of our curriculum and he passes away before i got to the buddha palm form. I was really looking forward to learning thet set, and due to the extent of my choy lee fut knowledge i felt that i could put together a Buddha palm set based on my branches methods. now, as long as i keep that set within my branch and not pass it off as an old traditional set, would there be a problem with me creating my own version?

Isn't that what Jeong Yim, Chan Heung, and Tam Sam did when creating Choy Lee Fut? (sorry, but the way i see it is all 3 make up CLF today, not just the chan family branch).

and for all we know is there were no sets back then as we know them today.
Perhaps the sets were just groups of combo's strung together-eventually shaped into what they are now.

anyhow, David is right, because every generation of teachers all try to add their earmark on their families gung fu to make it recognizable back to them. so the move or technique that was taught to them was eventually modified to fit them, therefore the original is eventually lost.

hsk

[Judge Pen]

Sure Frank. As long as you adhere to the core principles and earmarks of a system then anyform you create is as much of your style as the traditional forms passed down by your teachers.

In fact, I would bet it's common for masters to create sets out of thin air by taking bits and pieces of other sets and stringing it together in a new way. Nothing wrong or dishonest with it either as long as it's not passed off as old and traditional by the person who created it.

[David Jamieson]

alternatively you could exchange with others from other branches or styles to attain another version of the set as well.

right now, the traditional material i practice is a mix of Hung Kuen, Black Tiger (from the school i used to go to), black tiger (from the training partner i have now), wing chun (just teh hand sets), bak sil lum (3 sets from old school, 2 i learned on my own), chi kung from all over the place, yang tai chi, and so on and so on.

On top of this I do modern training as well. Sparring has tapered off lately due to other commitments with folks, but that aspect will pick up again and so it goes. The path just keeps stretching out in front of me.

it's all good...except for the fake sh1t that is. :D

[hskwarrior]

thats good to hear.

because i feel that as teachers we should also become pioneers into the new modern era. personally i feel that it shows you have a great understanding of your system if you can take something old and create off of that. For myself, all i truly know is our Choy lee fut, and i may want to create a whole new series of wooden dummy sets, more stick sets, and what not.

Has anyone here ever wanted to test their skills by putting together a set, and then present it to your sifu for approval?

In our school because we do not like people filming us in street performances, we instantly start demonstrating what we call "Chop Suey, and make up our choy lee fut rigt there on the spot right in the heat of the moment. The benefit of that is it shows you that ifyou can go from start to finish with a completely freestyle set and not freeze, stall, or even show you were making it up, that you know your gung fu.

anyways, i do have a category i am considering adding into my school called "modern Choy lee fut". it is where i will have all the sets i have created and people will know that the sets were recently created.

But now i have a question...how many generations would it take before something modern becomes a standard, or tradition?


hsk

[Judge Pen]

Has anyone here ever wanted to test their skills by putting together a set, and then present it to your sifu for approval?


Some schools require that you do this in order to advance to a different level.


In our school because we do not like people filming us in street performances, we instantly start demonstrating what we call "Chop Suey, and make up our choy lee fut rigt there on the spot right in the heat of the moment. The benefit of that is it shows you that ifyou can go from start to finish with a completely freestyle set and not freeze, stall, or even show you were making it up, that you know your gung fu.


That's common. It's also common to have show sets with moves made flashier or simplier so that it not only looks good but you know if someone stole it by watching a performance.


But now i have a question...how many generations would it take before something modern becomes a standard, or tradition?


One. Less if the creator lies about the form's origins.

[hskwarrior]

so just one generation, huh? I was thinking possibly two, (my students' students)
for me, it would mean that the ball is rolling.

i will state this here and now, " i will never claim something i put together is old and traditional."

it kinda makes me proud to see what i've started grow into something greater.

for example, i taught my students a few sets of 3 hand combo's such as kwa sow chop, and almost over night (not exactly-overnight!) i turn around and my students have taken "kwa sow chop" and threw in a couple of been choy's, butterfly palms, a few cup choys, and etc........and i never taught that to them.

then they show it to me and ask "sifu, what do you think of this?" and i'm like wow. so now, i am using their concoction (forgive misspelling) as a demo show.

man. its so cool to see growth.

hsk

[Troy Dunwood]

Just to add my two cents, I believe with formulating new sets I think if they are structured in the traditional sense of the style then the set is still traditional, regardless of who compiled it. It isn't like there truly is anything new, rather a re-structuring of what was already there in the first place, on the other hand if one developed something totally new that's not the norm, then one may have created something new. In my case I took movements and concepts from different systems and linked them together into what one may not normally see in one system, yet I haven't created anything new, yet I took the traditional systems already in existence and re-grouped and restructured, still keeping it's traditional concepts, structure, function. What makes it traditional, the way it's been for generations? To me in all actuality there is no modern or traditional and to get locked into this i believe is a level of stagnation, as if people nowadays doesn't have the intelligence, just think 50 years after the forerunner of shaolin, do you think they were thought of as modern or still traditional if it were called traditional in the first place.

[Judge Pen]

The problem with mixing principles form different systems into something new but still calling it traditional is that the principles from different systems are not always complimentary to one another. In some cases they can be counter-productive without modification in struture and/or philosphy. In thoses cases, it's not "traditional" it's new but based on old but nver linked together before principles. Which is fine if you call it that.

[Mulong]

Kudos to all that have posted, because I see the next generation is well equipped for the future of Chinese martial arts…

For example, I study and teach the duanshi (section style), i.e., northern, southern, and taijiquan, created by mainland China in these past few years.

I noticed right off the start that even though these lu (way) where new, but they were based on hongquan and cailifoquan; hence, repacking the past for a new society.

We must take into account; most individuals now are recreation martial artist (Not like some you guys.) Consequently, these contemporary practitioners do have the time or dedication; therefore, new taolu (set way) were created to suit their needs, which consist of lesser movements then classical taolu. However, these taolu focus upon the primary movements, were as classical lu have a lot of secondary, tertiary movements; hence, making it easier to learn and actually develop skills.

However, are these taolu new or old?

[MasterKiller]

I play my Hung Kuen differently than many people out there. To some, I might be doing something new. To others, I might be doing something the way it was done several generations back. Do I now re-name it? No. I call it Hung Kuen. Will the others be receptive to it? Probably not. They will most likely say what I am doing is NOT Hung Kuen. That I'm doing it wrong. Gwok Si, Gwok Faht. Each Sifu has his own interpetation of his style.
Now, prepare yourselves to witness my Drunken Taichi Hung-Ga !!!!!
(jes kidding. actually it's my Drunken Bot Gua Hung-Ga Grappling!)
Joi BotGua HungKuen Suet Gok...um, P'ai? :eek:

That is the difference between flavor and principle. Your Hung Kuen principles remian intact, but you express them individually---i.e. with individual flavor. Every true practicioner expresses their style differently from others in that same style because of body type, athleticism, ect...

Flavor is essential; otherwise, the arts would never grow. You would simply clone one fighter to the next through forms work.

[Troy Dunwood]

In my opinion and being based upon the skills i've exercised over the years I say all systems pretty much adhere to the same principles, technic wise there may be differences, but I guess I was truly after technics. I believe in the gist of it there is no such thing as traditional or modern because a punch is just a punch and so on. In the sense that it's tradition to be done this or that way yeah maybe, but what makes it traditional kung fu? the structure, function, the way it's skills are dispensed, etc., what make the say ping ma traditional over the plain ready position, perhaps because it was done this way a long time ago? I think everything we have has been created by someone and when formulating one may mixed principles if they are complementary to the goal which they are reaching for advancement. On the other hand, clf to intercept, ying jow to catch, wc to close, interlinking styles thats what i've done, is it anything new? No, it's the same techniques re-structured and re-grouped, linked together in what normally isn't associated in one school for effectiveness in combat. I'm like Bruce until someone comes up with a different way of hand to hand combat there isn't nothing new to create. Just my opinion.

[Mulong]

Hence, the formalization of a new style is then based upon the founders psychological and physiology makeup?