Martial Sport Vrs Art

[craftomega]

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.

 

[Alexander Bradley]

I think it's a huge misstep to think just because something has structure that it can't be an art. A lot of martial arts (especially the Chinese-based ones) are very artistic in how the different styles were made. Not to mention, most of them don't necessarily have to stick to a certain set of rules. Different regions, teaching grounds, or even different senseis/seifus can have variances in how things are practiced and taught, but it doesn't make the art any less beautiful if you take the time to analyze the purposes and the thought put behind each move and why it's done a certain way.

Personally, I feel that most western martial arts are more bred for sport and for "practicality" as opposed to their eastern counterparts. Krav Maga is more or less an amalgamation of different techniques designed for optimal efficiency in disarming/killing an opponent in a combat zone and isn't exactly known for being artful. Brazilian Jiujitsu seems to be another one that's much more "sporty" than artful. But as they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Boris Goodenough]

Depends on the definition of art, I mean certain art styles follow certain rules.
By your logic Krav Maga would be considered modern abstract art then and that makes me feel a bit uneasy.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Erm...define "Arts" and "Sports" in context.

 

[Smokej]

Erm...define "Arts" and "Sports" in context.

On more art theoretical approach to this subject could be to examine if and how the primacy of the manner of representation over the content applies. I would assume that most classic eastern Martial Arts are more aesthetically "designed" and their philosophies have a disposition to value form over content (it's always correlating nevertheless).

 

[ChocoFace]

outside of competition, martial art as such is definitely an art.

 

[HardkorSB]

The thing is, a real martial artist doesn't just take the moves and techniques and learn them, he also creates his own moves and techniques, adds his won flavor to the already existing ones. If you just do what has already been done and do nothing new with it, you're a craftsman, not an artist.
Martial arts in a commercial competitive environment, just like a lot of other things in that context (mainstream dance competitions, for example), have strict rules and requirements for winning (you HAVE TO do this and this, you CANNOT DO that and that). It's kind of constricting. That is not art.
Also, a lot of old martial arts also incorporate certain philosophies and ideas. It's not just about training the body but also the mind.

 

[DoPo]

I am disappointed now, I expected to see a video of somebody doing karate chops on Mona Lisa or similar.

Anyway, just because it's called "martial arts" I don't see why it has to actually be an art. Or, heck, why it couldn't be for that matter. Electronic Arts is not an art by itself, now is it? It's a company.

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.

So...let's see - a theatrical performance of a play is not art? It is a pre-created set of rules (the plot) recreated with no original ideas, now isn't it? It must be in the same category as fighting moves, I think.

 

[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...

 

[Lieju]

Isn't this a matter of the word 'art' having different meaning depending on context?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art

'Art' can be used to mean 'skill', as in 'the art of making friends', or 'The art of war'.

Doesn't mean martial arts can't be art the same way dance can be, in my opinion you just would need to be trying to get some message across with it, if just that the movement of human body is beautiful.

If it's a sports-match, you aren't trying to express yourself through the movement, you're trying to score points by achieveing something like hitting the opponent.

I don't really understand your point about western vs eastern martial arts. I practise fencing, for exercise and sport.

(But it can also be used as 'art', as a fighting scene in a movie, for example, where you are trying to express something through the swordplay, like anger, threat humour etc)

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

The same way as dance, I'd say.
You can have a fight scene in a play or a movie that evokes emotion the same way something like ballet does.
Of course things can be both, take figure scating, for example, that has the element of competition and physicality, but also the aspect of expressing feeling (that will be judged).

 

[rob_simple]

Well then you just wiped most music off the face of the Earth, as almost all (good) compositions follow a key or other pre-determined musical restrictions. All forms of art are based in rules and traditions, I refuse to believe that the martial arts you decry in the OP don't have practitioners who have advanced the form.

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.

 

[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.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

I don't think this is a problem with the naming of this I think this is a problem that can be easily solved with cracking open a thesaurus or an online dictionary. Art in this case could easily mean skill for the sport part and actual art for forms, self defence and kata but I use it loosely in the second area.

Also you just wiped out pretty much all the music in the world, many paintings and architecture the world over as being art. I think there's people who will disagree with that.

 

[ShindoL Shill]

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.

'Art' can also mean 'skill'.

4 a skill at doing a specified thing, typically one acquired through practice:
the art of conversation

Also, the visual arts (painting, sculpting, dancing) aren't about adaptation. They're about evoking emotional responses. Krav Maga and Western martial arts are not.

As for the rules.
As long as there is no rules that say that you have to do "X" after you did "Y", there still is freedom. Artistic freedom if you wish.
Granted, some martials sports have more "restrictions" than others, but the fighter can freely decide what he does as long as he doesn't break the rules.

The same can even be said for visual arts, and music. People are taught that certain colours or notes should not be combined with others, because they don't work together, and dancers follow pre-designed sets of movements, combined in various ways, which vary from style to style.
Martial artists, however, constantly combine different fighting styles to create new ones.

 

[Something Amyss]

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.

I'm sorry, but that's just false.

In terms of versatility, Eastern arts are not much different from Krav Maga. This sounds like a case of "I like X better than Y so I understand the nuances of X better than that of Y and now I will draw conclusions based on knowing more about X than Y" to me.

I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

and while we're at it....

So...let's see - a theatrical performance of a play is not art? It is a pre-created set of rules (the plot) recreated with no original ideas, now isn't it? It must be in the same category as fighting moves, I think.

Indeed, there's generally speaking less definition in martial arts than in artistic performances.

Incidentally, as a musician who spent years doing improv solos in jazz performances, I'll add that even freeform art can involve years and years of studying technique. Unless you're a musical genius, you probably won't pick up your instrument and start busting out improvisational work that sounds any good.

Most art has structure. Rules. Foundations. Most music pieces will follow the same chord progressions and the same formats. Most stories of length tend to follow the three-act play. As much as I think it's overused, we even have the Hero's Journey, a monomyth that applies to a good chunk of stories. Most schools of visual art follow form and structure, etc etc.

In other words, how is this not pedantry in the first place?

 

[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.

 

[R4ptur3]

Well first of all I think you need to understand what art means. Second, the majority of martial arts are if fact, arts. it's all about the movement of each person specifically. Take forms for example, you say they follow a set of rules yet each persons form will be completely different, they will not all look the same. Some will bend an arm, other will keep it straight. Some will use speed, other will be slower yet more precise.

You go tell a 60 year old karate master who has trained every day since he was 5 that he has been practising a sport all his life and see his reaction. Our western view on martial is completely different to those from east Asia. Yes, some of their martial arts integrate into sports but it's essence is still an art form.

Also your western art claim is ridiculous in my eyes. lets take the bow. During the 100 years war peasant Englishmen had to train with a longbow so they could go to war. It took days and years training at a young age to master the longbow, but they weren't doing it for a sport, they were doing it as a fighting art. sure, it was used as a sport but it's roots come from the artistry of growing up using that weapon.

Also there were western martial arts before the medieval era, so I don't know where your getting the idea of all western arts being medieval - renaissance.

 

[DoPo]

So...let's see - a theatrical performance of a play is not art? It is a pre-created set of rules (the plot) recreated with no original ideas, now isn't it? It must be in the same category as fighting moves, I think.

Indeed, there's generally speaking less definition in martial arts than in artistic performances.

Incidentally, as a musician who spent years doing improv solos in jazz performances, I'll add that even freeform art can involve years and years of studying technique. Unless you're a musical genius, you probably won't pick up your instrument and start busting out improvisational work that sounds any good.

True, true. I just think that theatre performance is exactly like martial arts - it's physical in nature, it relies on doing pretty much the same thing and otherwise behaves exactly the like. Well, although it's missing the competitive angle. In which case I can revise my example to dance - that has it covered.

 

[Something Amyss]

True, true. I just think that theatre performance is exactly like martial arts - it's physical in nature, it relies on doing pretty much the same thing and otherwise behaves exactly the like. Well, although it's missing the competitive angle. In which case I can revise my example to dance - that has it covered.

Yeah. As a music nerd, though, my mind goes elsewhere. I do get the comparison, mind. I just suck at dance.

I'm awesome at joint manipulation, though.