The definition of a traditional martial art

Discussion in 'General Martial Arts Discussion' started by Tom bayley, Dec 4, 2020.

  1. IronMaiden1991

    IronMaiden1991 Active Member

    I would argue traditional arts are very simple to describe but difficult to truly meet the definition of that people use. You have to explain what you mean by traditional.

    To some, a traditional art is one of asian backgrounds, but HEMA could arguably count.
    To some, it's an art rooted in historical traditions and cultures, but even boxing could fit that, or Judo.
    To some, it's arts that use kata, but kata is unlikely to be the first thing to develop in martial arts, that's like having a catalogue without any content in it.
    To some, it simply means 'not combat sport' but Boxing and Wrestling are definitely old enough to to fit the traditional description.

    Additionally, traditions do evolve over time, so these traditional arts are most likely not in their original form. Does this make them 'less' traditional? Does it mean they are now 'new traditions?'

    It's little more than a label. I'd liken it to labelling wine and trying to say 'this one is better/worse/whatever because of age, where it was made etc. Really, it's something I see heading in the direction of snobbery. If it's a good wine and I enjoy it, I don't mind if it's 300 years old, bottled on a full moon after the son of the Duke of Paris crushed the grapes under his virgin feet.

    In terms of fighting, there is little more ancient than our ancestors getting angry, making a fist, and throwing a sloppy haymaker at the other guys head, probably breaking his hand and then having to go learn to punch properly. Tradition.
     
  2. IronMaiden1991

    IronMaiden1991 Active Member

    I would argue traditional arts are very simple to describe but difficult to truly meet the definition of that people use. You have to explain what you mean by traditional.

    To some, a traditional art is one of asian backgrounds, but HEMA could arguably count.
    To some, it's an art rooted in historical traditions and cultures, but even boxing could fit that, or Judo.
    To some, it's arts that use kata, but kata is unlikely to be the first thing to develop in martial arts, that's like having a catalogue without any content in it.
    To some, it simply means 'not combat sport' but Boxing and Wrestling are definitely old enough to to fit the traditional description.

    Additionally, traditions do evolve over time, so these traditional arts are most likely not in their original form. Does this make them 'less' traditional? Does it mean they are now 'new traditions?'

    It's little more than a label. I'd liken it to labelling wine and trying to say 'this one is better/worse/whatever because of age, where it was made etc. Really, it's something I see heading in the direction of snobbery. If it's a good wine and I enjoy it, I don't mind if it's 300 years old, bottled on a full moon after the son of the Duke of Paris crushed the grapes under his virgin feet.

    In terms of fighting, there is little more ancient than our ancestors getting angry, making a fist, and throwing a sloppy haymaker at the other guys head, probably breaking his hand and then having to go learn to punch properly. Tradition.
     
  3. Kemposhot

    Kemposhot Valued Member

    It’s definitely a broad definition. I would definitely consider HEMA to be a TMA. Interestingly, I never even considered myself a TMA until MMA became so main stream. So perhaps it’s from that perspective?
     
  4. ap Oweyn

    ap Oweyn Ret. Supporter

    Honestly, I don't think it's a particularly helpful phrase. Naming conventions exist to help facilitate a shared understanding. But this thread has already made it clear that there's no real agreement on what the term means or who should get to determine it. But if you're asking what it means TO ME (as you are), that I can answer. Sort of. And off we go...

    I think the term "traditional martial art" is mostly a question of self-presentation at scale. The dominant forces in a given style choose to present themselves in a given way. To me, a traditional style is marked by a tendency to appeal to tradition on an overt and consistent basis. David Harrison raises a good point about clothing, for instance. Uniform is a very overt and consistent way to refer back to a cultural tradition AS A PRIORITY. (All styles do this at certain times and circumstances, but we're talking "at scale" here. What is the dominant message?) Language use, titles, classroom hierarchy, etc. all speak to this idea as well.

    If you were to ask what styles fall under that heading, it's necessarily kind of squishy. But I did grow up in the 70s and 80s, so the prior reference to Black Belt magazine in that time period resonated with me. With that in mind, I'd say that a lot of the styles that I associate with traditional martial arts are those that emerged in the public consciousness in the 60s and 70s and then those that aligned themselves with those styles as time went on. So, ironically, while it does cover things like kung fu (as a generic term), it also covers relatively modern developments like taekwondo or tang soo do. Why? Partly because those styles feature a conscious connection with older traditions, like karate-do. But also because the Korean arts were among the first to be introduced outside of Korea. Through servicemen, for instance (and Chuck Norris, for specific example). Taekwondo (a style I practiced for several years) features many of the self-presentational features I mentioned (e.g., the dobok, the belt system, etc.).

    On the other hand, my primary system (Filipino martial arts) really came into the public consciousness here in the US in the early 90s to my mind. And, having trained mostly with Filipinos over the years, I'm aware of the deep cultural traditions present in those styles. But those are often thought of as more modern styles. Partly, at least, because of a tendency among its practitioners to self-present as "modern, realistic, and tactical." People often train in BDUs, strapped with training knives and rubber pistols, etc. So the predominant self-presentation might not result in a perception of "traditional martial art."

    So there are going to be exceptions, but labels aren't about the exceptions. They're about the rule. Words mean what they mean because most people agree that they mean that. That's the nature of language.
     
    David Harrison likes this.
  5. El Medico

    El Medico Valued Member

    That's 'bout it.

    A term initially used in the West to refer to Japanese fighting systems and ways.Later applied to most Asiatic fighting systems-which aren't really "arts" at all.

    For some reason some folks want "recognition" of western combat sports/systems as "martial arts". Why I have never been able to fathom.

    Art is subjective.You can paint a picture which looks like a cat,or you can vomit,toss in some paper cups,and title it "Cat". Either version is art.

    Fighting systems/sports aren't subjective.Well,sports are within their ruleset-but things have to work within that ruleset.

    While different methods have different approaches the approaches in combat/sport systems must still work. Someone may not recognize your artwork as a cat even if you do. But the structure,theories,physical dynamics etc of fighting systems/sports HAVE to be functional. If not,then I guess they qualify as art.

    But I don't see western boxing,medieval German dagger fighting,Kali or T'ai Chi as that.

    'appy ta see ya,lad!
     
    IronMaiden1991 likes this.
  6. Flying Crane

    Flying Crane Well-Known Member

    There is a definition of art that means a skill in doing something, acquired through training and practice. It is disconnected from the idea of art as expression of creativity such as the fine arts or performance arts like dance.

    This is the definition that I feel is appropriate when discussing martial arts. Art in the sense of expression of creativity or aesthetics or performance art has no place in the discussion, in my opinion.

    I think a lot of people are confused about that point.
     
  7. ap Oweyn

    ap Oweyn Ret. Supporter

    Happy to be seen, El Medico. :)

    As for the term "art," I'm fairly indifferent to it. And here's why: I agree somewhat with both you and Flying Crane, in that the term "art" sees different uses throughout history. I'm fully behind the notion that there's an older definition that's perfectly applicable to martial arts. As Flying Crane says, it was once synonymous with method or skill and didn't necessarily refer to a creative act. That said, I disagree slightly with Flying Crane in so far that I think there's still room for the creativity-focused definition as well.

    Why? It's simple: 1) I'm not the slightest bit interested in policing other people's practices, only in helping people to recognize what they're looking at in those practices. 2) We're talking about an inherently abstract notion in the first place. El Medico's point about combat sports is well taken. They offer an objective (albeit not completely comprehensive) metric by which to determine effectiveness. That said, there are certainly plenty of arguments to be made that "X isn't real. Y wouldn't work." Etc. The "reality" crowd will point to sports' rule sets as unrealistic and abstract. I'd counter that training techniques that you can't actually perform on someone in training is equally abstract. All of which results in martial arts and, indeed, fighting systems being slightly abstract, arbitrary, and interpretive.

    On that first point, what I mean when I say I'm not interested in policing other people's practice is that I'm not willing to tell someone what terminology they ought to be using to describe their practice. I am, however, prepared to offer my view of its properties. For instance, I'm not going to spend my time telling people who practice "tricking" that they aren't doing martial arts. I don't care to. But if you ask me whether a 540 is your best bet in melee, I'll offer an opinion (and the accompanying reasoning).

    As a kali exponent, I don't mind whether someone calls it "art," "system," or whatever. I don't mind whether someone considers it a "traditional martial art" either. I'd much rather focus on showing people what it does, what its traditions are, etc.

    I have a love/hate relationship with semantics. :)
     
  8. Flying Crane

    Flying Crane Well-Known Member

    A fair and reasonable assessment and I can find a lot to agree with.

    I only look to distinguish the definition of “art” because it seems to me that some people are unaware of the other definition. When I see someone make a comment like “well I can get creative and do what I want, that is the ‘art’ side of martial arts” I just cringe. On one hand, yes people can do what they want, including performance and aesthetics-driven practices that tend to deviate from function. But on a larger original meaning of the term, I do not believe it was meant to imply aesthetic creativity in that context. It was meant to imply a skill developed through training and hard practice. I hold that martial arts were originally meant to be very practical. Martial arts as performance art is a more recent development, although I acknowledge that it has probably been around for at least a couple hundred years, being found in Peking Opera for example.
     
  9. ap Oweyn

    ap Oweyn Ret. Supporter

    I agree with everything you just said. It's an accountability thing to my mind. Similar to the accountability issue raised by creating your own style. If you embrace the "art as creativity" definition, then you're leaving yourself all sorts of leeway. If pressed, you can always say "I'm expressing myself," without being beholden to any concrete metric. On the one hand, follow your bliss, I guess. On the other, people need to be educated enough to understand that that's what's happening. And that, to me, is the real rub. If someone wants to create their own forms, taking their inspiration from crustaceans, shine on, you bright, crazy star. I'm not here to take that from you. But if you start to present that as though it were something else (e.g., a time-honoured tradition, an effective self-defense system, a valid approach to combat sport), then you need to be able to demonstrate its effectiveness within the parameters to which you're laying claim.

    The "you" in this case obviously isn't you, Flying Crane. I should have written that differently. Sorry mate. :)

    In any event, yes, I think you hit the nail on the head there.
     
    Flying Crane likes this.
  10. El Medico

    El Medico Valued Member

    Well........
    I cannot help feel this term "martial arts/artist/s is simply a facade,a veneer, a gloss.....about particular things which are inherently about violence.

    It doesn't matter all the self-improvement/spiritual seeking/etc/etc. These practices are (most of them) about fighting. If you don't believe me have a nice discussion about Funakoshi deliberately designing Shotokan as a Do,NOT a fighting system. But don't tell Shotokan people that.They don't want to hear it,even if their founder said so and some things within their system are less than optimal,and perchance detrimental to function-like the Shoto back stance.

    Let's face it-decades ago if you told someone you had joined the boxing gym,well ok. But if you joined the local Karate club you could tell people you were involved in "the art"-so you don't seem like such a ruffian.After all,martial "arts" aren't really about fighting,but much "deeper" things. Yawn.Sure.

    Which is why boxers and wrestlers weren't concerned with being "recognized" as martial "artists".At least until more recent times.

    My father was a craftsman.He was considered the absolute best in his field by many people familiar with his work,both executive types as well as the common workingman types.From coast to coast.No jive. No one ever called him an "artiste" tho'. No doubt because he got his hands dirty with "real work" and got machine fluids on his clothing sometimes.

    I think it's just an elite sounding term that kind of,or attempts to,make us "special"-we're "artists". Yet thousands of people all over the world doing various crafts don't get such a designation. When was the last time you referred to a master stone mason as an artist? Yet he will have far greater actual skills,applicable skills, in his field than most 3rd degree BBs do in their theirs. But we call a whole bunch of folks "artists" simply because they are practicing a particular athletic endeavor which centers on violence. No one informed us we were "artistes" due to learning particular skills when I was playing Kiwanis baseball,yet a kid the same age would be told he was studying an "art" if he joined a dojo.

    I have been asked over the years how long I have been involved in "the arts", yet I doubt the same people would have worded it that way if I had become involved on the local soccer team as some wanted me to do.Sooo....how cum? Why is practicing to smash someone's face more of an art than smashing a fastball with a bat? They're both simply athletic practices-and studying Silat doesn't make you any more aware,spritual,or anything else than any other endeavor.Like playing baseball.

    Sorry, I think this "art/arts/artists" is a misdesignation for/by (especially Western) practitioners of the things we do to make us seem more respectable and "special". And we ain't.So if we are only using it in the context of it meaning developing ability in a particular skillset,then let us give credit where credit is do. Let us begin to refer to the butcher,the baker and the candlestick maker etc as such and I'll go along.(After all,in northern China those folks are addressed as Sifu-something which northern Chinese martial system practitioners did NOT refer to their teachers as.

    Oh,but that would make the term "artist" mundane and take away our specialness,wouldn't it. So it would be meaningless.

    An aside-In regard to Chinese systems I'd like to add that Wu Shu does not mean "Martial (or military) Art. It means Martial (or military) Technique. Art is a different word.
     
  11. ap Oweyn

    ap Oweyn Ret. Supporter

    Well, that's the thing about language. As much as we'd like to pin it down, it defies us at every turn. Is it a perfect term? Nah. But do I think that there IS a perfect term? Nope.

    Could we get "martial methodologist" to catch on? Unlikely. Or "martial technician"? Those are actually pretty pedantic examples, aren't they. Something more reasonable might be "martial practitioner"(?) But is that really watertight? What's "martial"? We know it's derived from "Mars," the Roman god of war. So it refers to war. How many of these traditions actually still come out of actual war, though? Civil defense, sure. Duelling perhaps. Self-defense on a personal level. But actual war?

    Before it starts to sound like I disagree with you entirely, please know I absolutely don't. You're DEFINITELY onto something. But I don't think it's a universal. There are absolutely people who engage in pretention around practicing an "art." No question whatsoever. But is that the dominant feeling on the term? Not in my experience.

    I think, more commonly, it's a question of shoulder shrugging. We could really get into the weeds about semantics, or we could just roll with the fact that "martial art" has become the de facto designator for what we do. We could try calling it something else, but we'd be swimming upstream.

    As for whether it's inherently about violence, I don't know. I'm not sure it is. Inspired by violence, sure. But inherently about violence? I think it's too many degrees removed at this point. More on that later, I suspect. (I'm working it out as I write.)

    I've not spent years in Shotokan, but I've practiced it a bit. And the instructors I knew had a pretty balanced presentation between application and more of the attributes you'd associate with a "do." I would guess (though I don't know that I ever actually asked) that they maintained a healthy respect for the assertions made by Funakoshi Sensei. He was their founder, after all. If he said it was about more than fighting, then creator's intent and all. (Note I didn't say it was not about fighting.)

    Yeah, I hear ya. But I did join the local karate club decades ago, and I think it was a pretty mixed bag. We had our ruffians and our "artists." (I was more the latter, because it's not in my nature to be a ruffian, I was a bit pretentious, and I was terrified of actually fighting and wanted to believe that my knowledge of "the arts" would alleviate that concern.)

    Go back further to the likes of Joe Lewis and Benny Urquidez, and I think you find that they happily embraced the "ruffian, but without shoes" image. But I've never seen either of them really take to task the term "martial art."

    Bear in mind the use of the term isn't especially modern. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (author of Sherlock Holmes) refers to a method of self-defense as "the gentlemanly art." Go back WAY further, to the Renaissance, and Nicolo Machiavelli writes "The Art of War." (Trans. from the original Italian Dell'arte della guerra, lest we worry that the term "art" was applied in English in violation of the original intent). There is substantial historical precedence for the use of the term "art" meaning "technique" or "method."

    This question is RIGHT ON. In my experience, boxers and wrestlers aren't the slightest bit concerned with being labeled as martial artists. That call generally seems to come from the other direction. And I think you're absolutely right (if I understand you correctly) that the impetus is usually to build an association between one and the other. Most boxers I've met aren't concerned with that association because they don't need it. They're interested in boxing. In a boxing ring. Under boxing rules. So there's no advantage afforded by building that association with martial art.

    So why does it flow the other way? Well, in my view, it's typically one of two reasons:
    1. Credit where credit is due. I'd rather see a martial artist acknowledging the merits of boxing and wrestling than claiming that their wicked jab-cross-hook combination is derived from ancient battleground practices. Depending on how someone views the term "martial art" in the first place, its application to boxing and wrestling could simply be an expression of respect.
    2. Merit by association. If boxing is a martial art, Mike Tyson is a martial artist. I'm also a martial artist. Therefore, I'm a bit like Mike Tyson. Yay me!

    Likewise, the martial artists who have always garnered the most respect in my experience have been those who left practice with welts, bruises, and cuts. I don't think that recognition of someone requires a whole new lexicon. I'm perfectly okay with the notion that some martial artists are great and others are just doing it. But look at the example you just used. You said "Craftsman." I don't know what sort of craftsman he was, but we'll use carpentry as an example. (My grandfather was a carpenter.) You've applied an honourific here. But it isn't necessarily a veneer or gloss. It's an acknowledgment that there's doing a thing and then there's doing a thing to a higher standard. Now, I'm not saying that martial artists are doing a thing to a higher standard. I'm saying that a subjective judgment call was made and a term was applied in acknowledgment of that subjective assessment. And it's a term not free of veneer itself. "Craftsman" is the name of a line of tools precisely because of the imagery it evokes in the mind of the consumer. Not so different.

    Now, would your dad have referred to himself as a craftsman? I doubt my grandfather would have. He would have said "carpenter" or "woodworker" perhaps, both substantially less sexy designations. And that would be completely independent of his assessment of his own abilities.

    Well, there's a couple of ideas at play there. First "When was the last time you referred to a master stone mason as an artist?" Well, I don't personally know any. But I can certainly think of examples when someone has been called an "artist" as an acknowledgment of good work and an expression of admiration for a skill set. I have absolutely heard it used as a way to express that someone has performed a task in a way that exceeds general expectation. The implication being that someone has done something that surpasses necessity and has achieved something "more" than that.

    As for your example of baseball, here's why I'm okay with the term "art" (beyond the fact that it's not really worth worrying about, in my view): Even if you view the term to mean something more expressive and interpretive (versus simply a synonym for "skill set"), I think that makes sense. In baseball, you train to do a thing with very clear parameters. The skills you practice match up very precisely with the skills you apply in the "real event." When you practice pitching, that's how pitching will work in the game. When you throw outs and first and third in training, it'll work essentially that way on game day.

    Now compare that with martial arts. There is a degree of interpretation and abstraction in martial arts. No matter how you practice, it's an abstraction from actual violence. Every style and training method has rules. Combat sport has rules obviously, but so do "reality" styles and traditional styles. Nobody actually kicks one another in the unprotected jumblies in training. Nobody actually gouges eyes or draws a knife across someone's throat. We abstract. And if we're doing it well, we abstract from lots of different directions. Hoping that, somewhere in the middle, we'll have triangulated some measure of truth.

    I was at an FMA seminar years ago and one of the demonstrators performed a knife counter that involved cutting his "attacker" from a dozen different angles, ending with a stab in the throat. He then looked around and said "too real for you?" I'm not the sort that would openly take someone to task for that. But my immediate thought was "well, no; because you've never actually done that, so you're as in the dark about that actual experience as I am." We're all attempting to represent a reality in some way, because they actual reality would be miserable to actually achieve, even assuming you could. But some representations are more abstract than others.

    Sure. Fair. But is it really worth the angst? When you could just say "I've been training in silat since... " People use the vocabulary that's been provided. In a different context, perhaps one populated by practitioners of Southeast Asian martial arts, someone would have said "how long have you been involved in silat?" And that would be a perfectly palatable question, right? We can't really blame people for using the terminology that exists to frame an experience. Language has momentum. And the language around "martial art" has A LOT of momentum.

    Well, okay, but it's not especially Western is it? You yourself have referred to the practices of various Asian cultures in terms of acknowledging a practice. "Do" could just as easily be written off as a way to feel special when "jutsu" just didn't seem to cut it. "Gung fu" doesn't semantically have anything to do with violence. And look at "boxing." Where does that term come from? (That's a legitimate question. I don't know.) "Pugilism" is derived from the Roman word "pugnus," meaning "fist." That makes sense. So why did we need the term "boxing"?

    I hear you. But I wonder if the term is really the problem here.

    Historically, though, it isn't. From Merriam-Webster:

    Out of six definitions, we have:
    1. The FIRST one, which references skill, experience, study, and observation. Those all feel pretty accurate.
    2. A branch of learning. Also accurate.
    3. An occupation requiring knowledge or skill
    4. This is the first entry that cites creativity, imagination, aesthetics, etc.
    5. "A skillful plan." This one is cited as "archaic," but that speaks to my point about momentum. It's been this way for a while. And while we may not generally use the term "art" in that way any longer, when you combine it with something else, that term takes on a life of its own.
    6. Decorative or illustrative elements. So there's another that emphasizes "art" in the modern sense.
    So, out of six definitions, over half of them don't reference anything more than skill and experience.

    I hear your frustration, my friend. And I don't disagree with the problem you've identified. I just think that the term "martial art" isn't really the issue.

    Respectfully,

    Stuart
     
    Flying Crane likes this.
  12. David Silver

    David Silver Member

    I think this (long) article series by Nicholas Yang, son of Yang, Jwing-Ming discusses traditional martial arts thoroughly. I think generally, traditional is any style that's 100 years or older? Or maybe 50 years with a clear lineage? Not sure what it means, or how much it matters, in 2021...

    Article: Martial Arts in the 21st Century - Part 1 of 3

    "We must accept that we live in quite a different time compared to that of ancient China, and although we may not be able to mimic exactly what martial artists of old have accomplished, we can still extract and adopt the same principles that their training was built upon. From there, we can apply that foundation to our own modern day training methods. What we need to do together in the martial arts community is preserve the authenticity and quality of this foundational training. We need to collectively filter and openly share the best of what we know so that we may once again, transform this art into a highly-advanced and deeply intricate craft as it once was, but with a modern twist on it. From that milestone, we will be able to effectively develop martial arts today into an equivalent but modern adaptation of the training methods of ancient China."...
     
  13. TheUnnecessaryEvil

    TheUnnecessaryEvil Banned Banned

    Whenever I try to decide if a martial art is "traditional" I always ask myself "is the emphasis on effectiveness or is it on conformity and reinforcing a specific training culture?"

    I'll use Okinawan Karate as an example. Most people, when they look at Okinawan Karate, would call it a traditional martial art. I on the other hand, look at OK and I see the perfect example of a very old.. asian martial art that's NOT traditional.

    Now, one could argue that OK does establish a training culture, but when compared to Japanese Karate, the emphasis on building values and sucking off the teacher is practically non-existent (full offense to anyone who trains Japanese Karate btw). To address the training itself, OK is perfectly fine with sacrificing the "correct" way to do things, if it makes the technique more effective.

    JK teaches you how to move beautifully while getting punched in the face (again full offense). Because it's not about if you're doing something right from a combat perspective.. it's about if you're doing it "how it's always been done."

    And it's that "how it's always been done" and "how we've always conducted ourselves" attitude that makes anything traditional regardless of other factors.
     

Share This Page