Martial Sport Vrs Art

[Jordi]

I never really understand the discussions about what is art and what isn't. First of all, why does it matter? I don't consider being in the same category as painting stuff and making music to be necessarily a good thing. And it's all about your definitions anyway.

It seems a bit strange to claim that books, TV, films and music are art, but video games aren't. Just like it seems strange to claim that martial arts aren't art if you think that dance, gymnastics and theater are. But if you're consistent about your opinions, I have no problem with that.

It seems to me that most art forms have rules though, especially in competitions. Painting is (generally) done with paint, brushes and on a canvas. Writing is done with letters on a two-dimensional surface; you can't really deviate from that (and even if you can, most authors don't). When you perform katas/pumses/tuls in a competition, you cannot deviate from the prescribed techniques, but the way in which you do them is your own. But in other aspects of the sport (e.g. sparring and demonstrations) you are very free in what you do.

The one questionable aspect of Martial Arts being art is how does it effect the emotion of the onlooker...

Different things elicit emotions in different people. I don't give a crap about paintings or many other traditional arts. But if dance can elicit emotions, then why can't martial arts? You can appreciate the beauty of the practitioners' movements and I'd say fighting is pretty emotional to begin with.

I think you mis-understand me. The reason I say it is questionable is because it wouldn't be considered socially normal to have martial arts elicit emotion in a non-participant. This doesn't mean that I don't think that martial arts are not a form of art. Every other qualifier I can think of is present in martial arts to be considered as such.

Perhaps I did misunderstand; I certainly didn't think of social normality (and to be honest I consider what society thinks in this regard to be somewhat irrelevant in this respect). I assumed that 1) you think art should be able to elicit emotions in onlookers (or you wouldn't have brought it up) and 2) that you consider dance a form of art (and therefore able to elicit emotions in onlookers). I know these assumptions are potentially problematic, because you haven't explicitly said that you endorse these viewpoints.

I was saying that if dance can elicit emotions in onlookers, then why can't martial arts? Since fighting is generally fairly emotional (mostly filled with anger and fear)[footnote]Many people will say that the (professional) fighters themselves should suppress those emotions to stay focused, but that doesn't apply to onlookers. Personally, I'd say the fighters themselves should channel their emotions for maximum effect, but they should definitely control them.[/footnote], I'd say that this should transfer to the onlookers (as they tap into their own life experiences). And if emotion isn't elicited through this kind of empathy, onlookers can still feel awe at the beauty and skill of the practitioners' techniques.

 

[Coppernerves]

Its time for another topic that few will accept and many will hate.

I wanted to point out this distinction many classic martial "arts" are in fact not, they are martial sports. Most Asian Martial "Arts" are guilty of this; Taekwondo and Karate are great examples. Art involves the creation of something; it involves imagination and the ability to adapt. Sport involves a pre-created set of rules that one must follow in a physical activity.

Since Many Asian martial arts are based upon a pre-created set of rules that allow for no original ideas or imagination; they cannot be art.

If you want to see a true martial arts look at Krav Maga or western martial arts.


*Note:
Western martial arts have no official title, they are simply a conglomerate of medieval and renaissance style combat that has no fixed rules but only general ideas.

Good news, I don't hate the topic. I do not, however, agree with you on it. Many Martial Arts do fall under the sport category (though more western than eastern as you seem to think), but they are still arts in and of themselves. They are art in the fact that they are interpretive and each artist has his own techniques and moves. Advanced artists utilize many different techniques from different styles found all around the world to achieve a style that is as unique to them as Van Gogh's brush strokes are to him.

The one questionable aspect of Martial Arts being art is how does it effect the emotion of the onlooker...

It looks like most sports are art as well.

In a sparring competition, the audience (or onlooker) is the crowd of spectators.
In a fight, the audience is whoever you're defending yourself from.
In practice, (especially with internal styles), the audience is yourself.

 

[jdogtwodolla]

Excuse me if i'm waaay off the ball here but I thought that technique was a form of craft, which itself is the oldest form of art there is.

 

[Treeinthewoods]

So does that mean that dances like ballet or tap are not art as well? Ballet is a sport?

OP is silly.

 

[Dimitriov]

Its time for another topic that few will accept and many will hate.

I wanted to point out this distinction many classic martial "arts" are in fact not, they are martial sports. Most Asian Martial "Arts" are guilty of this; Taekwondo and Karate are great examples. Art involves the creation of something; it involves imagination and the ability to adapt. Sport involves a pre-created set of rules that one must follow in a physical activity.

Since Many Asian martial arts are based upon a pre-created set of rules that allow for no original ideas or imagination; they cannot be art.

If you want to see a true martial arts look at Krav Maga or western martial arts.


*Note:
Western martial arts have no official title, they are simply a conglomerate of medieval and renaissance style combat that has no fixed rules but only general ideas.

The word art comes from the Latin 'Ars, Artis', and at its most basic definition means skill or craft.
So yes, that definitely applies.


Etymology aside, the creative aspect of any combat, highly regulated or otherwise, occurs in the brief moments of action and reaction. If someone punches you, do you block it? Duck it? Sidestep?

Or even counterattack? and if so how?

All these brief spontaneous decisions define the creative side of martial arts.

 

[Albino Boo]

Its time for another topic that few will accept and many will hate.

I wanted to point out this distinction many classic martial "arts" are in fact not, they are martial sports. Most Asian Martial "Arts" are guilty of this; Taekwondo and Karate are great examples. Art involves the creation of something; it involves imagination and the ability to adapt. Sport involves a pre-created set of rules that one must follow in a physical activity.

Since Many Asian martial arts are based upon a pre-created set of rules that allow for no original ideas or imagination; they cannot be art.

If you want to see a true martial arts look at Krav Maga or western martial arts.


*Note:
Western martial arts have no official title, they are simply a conglomerate of medieval and renaissance style combat that has no fixed rules but only general ideas.

Ever heard of ballet, its and art that involves a series of pre set moves that one must follow in a physical activity. Most of the standard ballets are using the exact same choreography as they did 150 years ago. The steps used in swan lake today are the same as when it was first staged. Ballet is an art so why not martial arts?

 

[SckizoBoy]

And one wonders why there are shitloads of different schools of... well, pretty much every discipline going.

There is little to indicate that combat disciplines are not 'arts', otherwise one wonders why anything is 'art'. Think of a still-life painting. By your definition, it is just a poor replica of reality.

If you want to see a true martial arts look at Krav Maga or western martial arts.

I'm sorry but how?! Yes, I know that Krav Maga is probably one of the best conglomerates of techniques going, but I very much doubt many could call it an 'art' in the typical definition of the word. It's brutal, efficient, practical and deadly... and having said that, just as rule bound as any other martial form because of what its precepts are. And 'western martial arts'? Please, lemme tell you about the first fully codified martial arts manuals, the 'Fechtbuechen', they are just as 'do this, and in this way, with this mindset with your hands like that and feet placed like so' and analogy filled as their Asian counterparts. Difference? Uh, none whatsoever except the language. Even down to the holistic and philosophical elements of why one should practise with a greatsword.

 

[One of Many]

Its time for another topic that few will accept and many will hate.

I wanted to point out this distinction many classic martial "arts" are in fact not, they are martial sports. Most Asian Martial "Arts" are guilty of this; Taekwondo and Karate are great examples. Art involves the creation of something; it involves imagination and the ability to adapt. Sport involves a pre-created set of rules that one must follow in a physical activity.

Since Many Asian martial arts are based upon a pre-created set of rules that allow for no original ideas or imagination; they cannot be art.

If you want to see a true martial arts look at Krav Maga or western martial arts.


*Note:
Western martial arts have no official title, they are simply a conglomerate of medieval and renaissance style combat that has no fixed rules but only general ideas.

art
noun \ˈärt\
Definition of ART
1
: skill acquired by experience, study, or observation
2
a : a branch of learning: (1) : one of the humanities (2) plural : liberal arts
b archaic : learning, scholarship
3
: an occupation requiring knowledge or skill
4
a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced
b (1) : fine arts (2) : one of the fine arts (3) : a graphic art
5
a archaic : a skillful plan
b : the quality or state of being artful
6
: decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter



So now that we have the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of art in play, you can see that your not completely right. If the forth meaning of the word, were the only meaning of art, then yes, the Martial Arts wouldn't be art but they are skills learned by experience, study and observation, fitting in nicely with the first meaning of the word.

As for your comment about western Martial Arts, are you trying to tell me that things like; Boxing, Fencing, Greco-Roman wrestling, Juego del Palo, Bataireacht and Savate have no rules and are just general ideas? Ha!

 

[GoaThief]

I think there are two distinct points the OP is confusing. One is, "What is art?" - the other is the difference between ringsport and martial arts. There's a hint of East vs West too but that's a very muddied subject these days.

 

[grey_space]

I wish people would stop declaring what is and isn't art based on their arbitrary conclusions about a subject with so many different definitions.

So much this. Without context, nothing means anything.

Even western martial arts work within some form of 'ruleset'.

As a person who has studied a few martial arts I learned Krav Maga moves doing Karate and discovered judo throws in Tae Kwon Do.

I've found western wrestling moves in Kung Fu and BJJ moves in Silat.

I've seen the odd Boxing footwork movement in Judo and all the stances I have studied in the Liechtenauer School (a western form of swordfighting) all match basic 'eastern' martial arts stances.

Indeed it was a WMA instructor of mine that said all martial arts are simply basic kinematics, human body dynamics, and psychology.

Everything else is just flavour and interpretation.

I tend to agree.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Unless I'm somehow gravely wrong about Asian martial arts, and they actually only have one move for each situation, in which case the winner would be decided at the outset, then obviously they do involve adaptation and personal influence. Not that I'm in the business of caring whether or not they are an 'art'.

 

[Not Lord Atkin]

I honestly don't think that 'art' can be defined the way you did. I believe that art is commonly defined as something 'of either aesthetic or cultural value', the interpretation of which is subjective. You may view certain things as art and not others and vice versa. It is perfectly acceptable if you view certain martial arts to be more artistic than others, but to claim that something isn't and can't be art based on one set of criteria which you have seems a tad ignorant.

As for the sport vs art point, there are martial arts that are more oriented toward the sport side of things while others emphasize self-defense and technique. You mentioned taekwondo. TKD is actually split into two major organisations, ITF and WTF. ITF is the more technical one which puts emphasis on movement patterns and control, WTF is more competitive and emphasizes sparring (olympic TKD is done by WTF rules). I wouldn't say that WTF is less of an art because of this.

The master of our dojang, an VIII dan senior master in ITF, once told us that even though it wasn't the most important thing, the techniques when executed properly should also look good. According to him, that's where the 'art' bit of 'martial art' comes in. Now I'm not sure if that's necessarily correct but it's a completely valid way to look at it. And it's an interesting point. You should consider that.

 

[rutger5000]

I couldn't dissagree more. Art is a way of expressing yourself, and I think the classical martial arts specifically are cappable of this. Whereas modern western martial 'arts' like Krav Maga isn't anything more than learning how to fight dirty. (I don't know that much about Krava Maga, so I could be wrong but that's how it looks like to me).

 

[Kolby Jack]

Martial Arts just rolls off the tongue better than "martial sports." And I'm going to take the "reality-inducing douchebag" route here and say if two bits of sheet-metal welded together at oblique angles can be defined as art, so can punching someone in the face. As long as you do it, ya know, ritzy or whatever.

But I'm generally opposed to defining anything as art, because art is entirely subjective in every respect. Art is dumb.

 

[Calibanbutcher]

Martial Arts just rolls off the tongue better than "martial sports." And I'm going to take the "reality-inducing douchebag" route here and say if two bits of sheet-metal welded together at oblique angles can be defined as art, so can punching someone in the face. As long as you do it, ya know, ritzy or whatever.

But I'm generally opposed to defining anything as art, because art is entirely subjective in every respect. Art is dumb.

Ok, but what if you beat someone with two metal-plates artfully welded together, and do so artfully as well?
Is that art as well?

IN all honesty:
I agree with your stance on this.

 

[barbzilla]

I never really understand the discussions about what is art and what isn't. First of all, why does it matter? I don't consider being in the same category as painting stuff and making music to be necessarily a good thing. And it's all about your definitions anyway.

It seems a bit strange to claim that books, TV, films and music are art, but video games aren't. Just like it seems strange to claim that martial arts aren't art if you think that dance, gymnastics and theater are. But if you're consistent about your opinions, I have no problem with that.

It seems to me that most art forms have rules though, especially in competitions. Painting is (generally) done with paint, brushes and on a canvas. Writing is done with letters on a two-dimensional surface; you can't really deviate from that (and even if you can, most authors don't). When you perform katas/pumses/tuls in a competition, you cannot deviate from the prescribed techniques, but the way in which you do them is your own. But in other aspects of the sport (e.g. sparring and demonstrations) you are very free in what you do.

The one questionable aspect of Martial Arts being art is how does it effect the emotion of the onlooker...

Different things elicit emotions in different people. I don't give a crap about paintings or many other traditional arts. But if dance can elicit emotions, then why can't martial arts? You can appreciate the beauty of the practitioners' movements and I'd say fighting is pretty emotional to begin with.

I think you mis-understand me. The reason I say it is questionable is because it wouldn't be considered socially normal to have martial arts elicit emotion in a non-participant. This doesn't mean that I don't think that martial arts are not a form of art. Every other qualifier I can think of is present in martial arts to be considered as such.

Perhaps I did misunderstand; I certainly didn't think of social normality (and to be honest I consider what society thinks in this regard to be somewhat irrelevant in this respect). I assumed that 1) you think art should be able to elicit emotions in onlookers (or you wouldn't have brought it up) and 2) that you consider dance a form of art (and therefore able to elicit emotions in onlookers). I know these assumptions are potentially problematic, because you haven't explicitly said that you endorse these viewpoints.

I was saying that if dance can elicit emotions in onlookers, then why can't martial arts? Since fighting is generally fairly emotional (mostly filled with anger and fear)[footnote]Many people will say that the (professional) fighters themselves should suppress those emotions to stay focused, but that doesn't apply to onlookers. Personally, I'd say the fighters themselves should channel their emotions for maximum effect, but they should definitely control them.[/footnote], I'd say that this should transfer to the onlookers (as they tap into their own life experiences). And if emotion isn't elicited through this kind of empathy, onlookers can still feel awe at the beauty and skill of the practitioners' techniques.

Okay I guess I will have to make this crystal.

1: I do think art should be able to elicit emotions in the audience, but I don't think it has to elicit that emotion in everyone. The only thing this effects is if that particular person finds it to be artistic. That doesn't mean that emotions are the only thing that makes art actually art though. Mainly because everything is capable of eliciting emotion in someone. So by this metric alone a turd floating in a toilet bowl is art to someone.

2: I do consider dance to be a form of art, but my argument could have just as easily been about pornography, or marble sculptures, so I don't see the relevance.

As for social normality I think it to be irrelevant as well. I only brought it up because I think that is why many people wouldn't consider martial arts to be an actual art. The social norm is how many people organize what they consider to be normal practices. That doesn't make them right or wrong it is just their opinion.

To summarize my feelings on martial arts being an art form, I would say it is. I practice multiple forms myself, and the training/practice for many traditional martial arts is incredibly similar to that of dancing and performance arts. The mere fact that so many movies use fighting as a way to establish conflict shows that it has the basis of emotional attachment. The combination between skill and emotional response in the audience shows that it is, indeed, a true Art. I also think not many people will agree with me. Most people will see Martial Arts as art in the usage of the word that means practiced skill.

 

[barbzilla]

Its time for another topic that few will accept and many will hate.

I wanted to point out this distinction many classic martial "arts" are in fact not, they are martial sports. Most Asian Martial "Arts" are guilty of this; Taekwondo and Karate are great examples. Art involves the creation of something; it involves imagination and the ability to adapt. Sport involves a pre-created set of rules that one must follow in a physical activity.

Since Many Asian martial arts are based upon a pre-created set of rules that allow for no original ideas or imagination; they cannot be art.

If you want to see a true martial arts look at Krav Maga or western martial arts.


*Note:
Western martial arts have no official title, they are simply a conglomerate of medieval and renaissance style combat that has no fixed rules but only general ideas.

Good news, I don't hate the topic. I do not, however, agree with you on it. Many Martial Arts do fall under the sport category (though more western than eastern as you seem to think), but they are still arts in and of themselves. They are art in the fact that they are interpretive and each artist has his own techniques and moves. Advanced artists utilize many different techniques from different styles found all around the world to achieve a style that is as unique to them as Van Gogh's brush strokes are to him.

The one questionable aspect of Martial Arts being art is how does it effect the emotion of the onlooker...

It looks like most sports are art as well.

In a sparring competition, the audience (or onlooker) is the crowd of spectators.
In a fight, the audience is whoever you're defending yourself from.
In practice, (especially with internal styles), the audience is yourself.

I followed you up till the end, in practicing martial arts your mind is not reflecting, it is either empty or projecting. I think most sports are art as well. In fact I think just about anything can be classified as art, provided that art was its intent. Intent is one of the things that truly confuses me about art, and it makes me feel like a hypocrite at times. I think that art should be intentional, otherwise it is just an accident, but I also think things can be perceived as art that were not intended as such. I know that statement makes me look like a moron, but I just can't think of any other way to explain it. It is a very dual natured statement.

 

[Fwee]

That's kind-of like saying Beethoven's IVth isn't art if anyone other than Beethoven plays it.

There's an aesthetic to learning the forms in one's style, and a tradition that is upheld. A person is expressing themselves through the movement of their body. Look at public displays and tournaments. Part of advancement is to perform a demonstration, which is often planned by the person giving the demonstration.

 

[Tanakh]

-snip-

Do you even lift bro?

Sorry but your post sounds like someone that never did Martial Disciplines seriously, imagination, creativity and adaptation are at the core of them.

Also Martial Art is just a recent (bad) translation of 武術. Don't know any serious practicioner that gives a rat ass over the word "art" being there.

Dunno man, your post sounds amazingly noobish in every possible aspect, but it might just be me.

 

[The]

I always think of it this way. Dancing is a form of art, no? I practice Taekwondo, which, both in the movement patterns and competitive sparring areas are like another branch of dancing... well, self-defense dancing. And so what if martial arts has predefined rules and no "original ideas". Some of the best art, like books, movies, paintings are made under predefined rules (lets say a certain style, like cubism, classical) and borrows or takes from the ideas of others (genres conventions of books and movies, or a similar art style).

And what is this you're saying about western martial arts being just ideas? Are you saying boxing has no set technique? That fencing is so out of the box and original? It'\s ideas have been passed down from generations, so its not that "original".