commentary: public shows - "martial" versus "art"

this commentary is a follow-up from the post i wrote about World Tai Chi & Qi-Gong Day. to see what i'm discussing, you'll want to reference: day 29: world tai chi & qi-gong day.

i won't go into a description of the event itself, since it's in the post. there are also photos documenting the day there as well. suffice it to say that i had very mixed feelings about what i saw, and that it's given me quite some food for thought--not just about the event itself, but about public shows related to kung fu in general.

public shows

when i use the term "public shows," i am referring to events that are frequently used as a forum for kung fu demonstrations: public festivals, community gatherings, martial arts-related gatherings, holiday celebrations, etc. i don't necessarily include fighting tournaments (kung fu or non-kung-fu), non-public meetings (e.g., dinners between masters or schools), academic communications (such as those between scholars or instructors researching martial arts), or even recruiting shows (i.e., "open to the public" or even days at martial arts schools). the distinction is that the former involves--and even promotes--full public access, while the latter has more restrictive access.

what i saw at World Tai Chi & Qi-Gong Day left me with a very different picture of martial-arts (particularly kung fu) themed public shows than what i had before. before, i thought that they were (and are) a potentially very useful way of promoting what is largely a very esoteric topic (martial arts, and again, particularly kung fu) to a larger, more mainstream American society. but now, i am not so sure. the event crystallized for me a picture of both positives and negatives.

i went to the celebration with a certain level of curiousity, unsure of what to expect, and with a fairly open mind of what would be there. i had some hopes of what i would have liked to see in terms of a tai chi celebration: different schools demonstrating their unique styles, different instructors presenting themselves and their students, different practitioners sharing a common style, and different aspects of the style being displayed to show a more comprehensive picture of the style. but while i hoped for this, i didn't necessarily expect it.

what i found, however, was a very limited picture of tai chi. there were most definitely different schools with different variations of a style, and very much different instructors presenting themselves and their students, and to some degree different practitioners sharing a common style. but the only aspects being shown seemed to be just those fulfilling purposes of mysticism, socialization, or performance art. while not necessarily negative by themselves, i was still alarmed because these were displayed in such a way that fed the damaging stereotypes and mis-perceptions held by much of the modern world--to see what i mean, reference: commentary: the dork factor. in addition, there was very little offerings of tai chi for its other, more pragmatic aspects of meditation, medicine, exercise, or self-defense. in essence, for a festival celebrating tai chi as a martial art, there was not a lot of "martial" and a lot more (mostly more) of "art." to me, this was tantamount to suppression of a clear picture of the style.

admittedly, this was just one day. i have been told that past World Tai Chi & Qi-Gong Days were different. and no doubt the celebrations of it at other locations around the world have different flavors. and i also know that other public martial arts shows may very well be very different from just this single event. as a result, i freely concede that i am forming perspectives based on a very poor data sample of 1.

but i'm not issuing a final, declarative judgement at this point. i'm merely stating a developing image that is forming as a result of what i saw, and which is subject to change as i go further into the martial arts.

the many aspects of kung fu

in fairness, i should also make it a point to note something i have learned from conversations with my fellow students and my Sifu, Jason Tsou: martial arts--particular kung fu--is a very expansive subject, with many different facets that allow it to be used and viewed in many different ways by many different people. this is because it is a product of history and culture, and as a result is a compilation of many different aspects of human existence. hence, it is often used for many different purposes other than fighting and self-defense.

based on the discussions i've had, kung fu (and to some degree most martial arts) serves many roles related to combat, medicine, personal growth, community, and individuality:

• self-defense--by its very name and definition, a "martial" art is about combat. otherwise, it is not "martial." furthermore, in terms of origin, all martial arts have a basis in combat. as a result, because kung fu is a martial art, it serves in no small measure the goal of providing self-defense.
  
• physical health--through its physical expression, a martial art conditions the body, and so improves physical health, as it may be defined in terms of strength, aerobic & anaerobic fitness, physical coordination, flexibility, adjustment of organs, and regulation of hormones and biological and chemical processes. kung fu is no exception, especially with its connections to traditional chinese medicine. as a result, it offers medical aid and opportunities for personal growth.
  
• internal health--via its demands upon character, a martial art refines and fortifies the mental and spiritual elements of a practitioner, and so improves internal health, as it may be defined in terms of character traits (discipline, diligence, consideration, motivation, etc.), spiritual traits (faith, devotion, harmony, compassion, etc.), mind-body awareness, and disposition or demeanor. kung fu, regardless of "internal" or "external" classifications of its styles, integrates these aspects into its training. as a result, similar to physical health, it offers medical aid and opportunities for personal growth.
  
• socializing--as a mechanism for networking and community building, martial arts provides a common thread connecting people together, with classes providing forums to meet new people and styles acting as a unifying element for different schools. in addition, by its nature as a subject matter requiring visual demonstration, martial arts enables "face time" for people to meet, mingle, and communicate with each other. kung fu is emblematic of this, courtesy of its history stretching across millenia, which has ingrained it into the fabric of chinese culture and history. chinese society views it as a part of community.
  
• creative expression--through its lessons, a martial art allows personal development of a person's total entity (physical, mental, spiritual) in a way that balances all aspects of their identity. in so doing, it facilitates creative expression of a person's character, intentions, and state through motion. this is the "art" in the term "martial art." kung fu, with its vast array of fighting styles, offers many avenues for personal development, and hence enables a wide range of options for expressing individuality.
  

Sifu commented to me that different people look for different things, and as a result those who turn to martial arts like kung fu will turn to it for different reasons. to him, this is fine, since kung fu can accommodate such purposes and should be allowed to do so.

he cautioned, however, that people should try to be aware of other aspects of kung fu, and recognize that it has many other facets than the particular ones they are pursuing. this is important on different levels:

• on an individual level, this is important because in time, people may change, and may desire to explore other facets than the one(s) they originally sought, or other people may desire other aspects than the one(s) a particular practitioner is offering. in which case, those other aspects should be available to them.
  
• on a larger level, however, it is also important in that the preservation of kung fu requires that all aspects of it be given life by its practitioners, otherwise those aspects may be forgotten or corrupted. more than this--and this is where i return to what i said earlier--it suppresses people from seeing the complete picture of the style. the simply way to prevent either scenarios is to preserve all facets of kung fu.
  

positives and negatives

for me, i can see that a "complete" picture of a style (tai chi or any other) requires acceptance of the many ways people approach learning and practicing it, and hence acceptance when they present their approach in a public show. not everyone learns kung fu for the same motivations, and they have the right to act on those motivations and express the product of such actions in public shows.

in addition, living in an open society, the audience also has the right to see anything instructors and practitioners are willing to show. from a yin-yang perspective, kung fu (or any martial art), is a reflection of human society, and so to some degree is engaged in an interactive relationship with society, responding to it in one way while simultaneously influencing it in another way.

moreover, i can also see that to some degree, a public show is just for fun, and so meant more for celebration with others rather than serious contemplation and action. public shows are not meant for competition, or to hurt anyone, but rather to feel a sense of community, camaraderie, good spirits, and joy shared by people from the subject that is kung fu. in which case, it is perhaps excessive--and perhaps unrealistic--to expect any more from public shows. they are what they are; they are not academic forums for rigorous research, nor full-contact forums of battle-testing. they are just simply community festivals for people to have fun and share their interests.

still, what i saw left me feeling ambivalent. on one hand, i believe that public shows, if done in a balanced and comprehensive manner presenting a "complete" (or as close as possible) picture of a style, can offer many advantages benefiting the style and its practitioners. on the other hand, however, what i saw recently was not a "complete" picture of a style. it was not "martial art," but instead "martial" versus "art," with "martial" losing. which bothers me, because it distorts the picture of kung fu, and in a way that is rife with risks to the public and to the martial art itself. while there may be many positives to public shows of kung fu, i also see many negatives.

positives

in terms of the positive effects of public shows, they have the capacity to offer a number of elements that serve both individual and larger levels:

• they allow people to see benefits of martial art--they provide a setting where people can see the benefits offered by martial arts, particularly in public shows presenting the many roles fulfilled by martial arts.
  
• they offer choices--they let people view multiple schools and multiple instructors of different styles and different methods, and thereby give people a range of choices to learn from. in essence, they create a "marketplace of kung fu" from which consumers can discriminate and shop. the more aspects of the martial arts are demonstrated, the greater the selection available for people to choose from.
  
• they educate the public and participants--they allow access to people who may not know little or nothing about the styles being displayed, and so helps educate a wider audience about martial arts and what they offer. even for experienced practitioners, they give opportunities to discover subjects they didn't know, and so new avenues to improve themselves and their art. the more facets of a style are displayed, the more complete the picture that is available.
  
• they provide socialization--they give a forum where the community of practitioners can come together and share their passions for a style, so they can see that they are part of a much larger phenomenon, communicate knowledge and insight, and exchange news and perspectives, thereby enriching the entire gathering of participants. the more diverse the presentation, the greater the nature of enrichment from differing viewpoints and perspectives.
  
• they enable preservation--by doing all of the above, they help sustain a style. on an individual level, they let people personally experience and see the benefits, choices, education, and social community of the style they practice. on a larger level, they give life to a style and thereby help preserve it. the wider the range of aspects of a style are shown, the wider the qualities of the style are sustained.
  

negatives

in terms of the negative effects of public shows, they have the possibility of producing the following:

• they distort the picture of kung fu--people, meaning the public as well as practitioners, tend to believe only what they can see. it's human nature. if all people see is a certain part of the image of a style, then that's all they'll ever think of it; if all they see is mystical conversations, movement synchronized to music (i.e., dancing), costumes and makeup and props, and pot-smoking in grassy parks, then that's what people will think kung fu is. they'll never think of it as personal growth. or as medicine. or as self-defense. because they won't know...because they've never seen it.
  
• they allow propagation of lies about self-defense--the distortion of the picture of kung fu leaves it susceptible to the malevolent intentions of charlatans, con artists, and opportunists taking advantage of the ignorant, the naive, or the gullible. in a mass entertainment setting such as a public show, it becomes too easy for nefarious instructors teaching only the artistic aspects of kung fu to lie to their students and to the public that they are witnessing combat techniques. that is, it is too easy for them to lie about teaching self-defense, even though they teach no combat applications nor conduct combat training. in effect, they can claim they are offering a "complete" picture of kung fu, when all they know (if they know anything at all) is a fragment of it. they can do this, because people who've never seen combat applications or combat training won't know...they won't know because they've never seen it.
  
• they discredit honorable past instructors--martial arts, and kung fu, are a product of the honorable, diligent, dedicated work of past instructors. but distorting the picture of kung fu, or lying that self-defense is being taught when it is really not, serves to discredit the efforts of historical contributors by eroding the credibility of their work. more than this, it insults the time and energy they devoted to the martial arts, and it insults their lives. this is because people who discover that they've been denied the complete picture of kung fu (especially when they thought they were learning it) lose respect not only in the instructor who failed them, but also in the martial art and all the masters who represented it.
  
• they discredit the martial art--martial arts only have as much life as given to them by practitioners. if the practitioners fail to see (and live) the complete picture of a martial art, then the fragments they do not express fall into disuse, disrepair, corruption, or worse, become forgotten. if the practitioners lie about teaching the complete picture when they are truly not, then the picture becomes hidden, and once again vulnerable to disuse, disrepair, corruption, and becoming forgotten. either way, the end result is that the public sees something that is not accurate, and once they realize the inaccuracy they lose trust in what they see. in short, it discredits the martial art.
  

what to do

dealing with this situation is somewhat muddled. from what i can see, there's 3 different ways to approach this situation:

• go to extremes--either just surrender (i.e., give up and forget about kung fu) or go aggressive (i.e, take a mission to "correct" everyone else). neither to me seems viable. surrendering means denying yourself, your surrounding network of friends & family, and the world the experience of martial arts. always an option, but not very constructive...to you or anybody else. being aggressive is also bad, because it assumes an air of condescension, arrogance, and presumptuousness that you know more about the "truth" of kung fu than anybody else. which is a pretty hard thing to say, knowing all the uncertainties in life. worse, it ignores the questions of just what is the "truth" of kung fu, or what is "correct" kung fu. kung fu, and martial arts, is many things for many people, so who are you to say what it can or cannot be? do you know? does anybody know? if there is anything that is "truth" or "correct," then any hope of finding it means trying for the most wide-ranging, comprehensive, all-encompassing answer possible...which means accepting many truths and many correct aspects of kung fu--and that means both your own and everyone else's, together. again, being aggressive is always an option, but not very constructive.
  
• do nothing--the easy thing is to do nothing, and just be completely passive. this could be the "Taoist" method of responding to the situation. this is not to say to surrender. but rather to accept the nature of public shows being public shows, and accept that people will find in martial arts what they want to find. given this, the only thing a practitioner can do--at least, a practitioner dedicated to a more comprehensive education in martial arts--is to continue on their development in their martial art, and to continue their own attendance and presentations at public shows...not so much as to make a statement, nor to correct problems, but rather just to live the path of life and allow people to see when they want to see. sometimes they do. sometimes they don't. regardless, the martial arts are alive through you.
• avoid the situation and do your own thing--another option is to simply not attend and do your own thing. while a very passive-aggressive approach to the situation, i see this as highly tempting. i've heard stories of instructors of kung fu who take its combat origins seriously refusing any and all public demonstrations or tournaments. i can understand why. i can see that they might come to a public event like what i saw, look around and see that no one is really interested in combat applications but rather instead into music and makeup and costumes and mind-altering experiences, and come away feeling entirely disappointed and depressed at the state of kung fu. i can further see that their reaction would simply be seclusion, and the comfort of knowing that they're preserving a forgotten or disused part of kung fu on their own.
• engage--a last option is to actually try to do something pro-active. that is, to actually make it a point to go to a public show, and to consciously identify what it is that is being left incomplete or disguised, and then to intentionally supply the necessary presentation to complete the incomplete and to undisguise the disguise. in essence, this would mean taking presentations at public shows a mission to show the public something they may not be seeing elsewhere. for instructors serious about the combat origins of kung fu, this would mean going to public shows and tolerating the "art" for the sake of offering the "martial," so that the public would see that kung fu is not just "art" but also "martial." the hope would be that people make the connection that kung fu is both "martial" and "art" combined together to make a "martial art."
  

the latter approach is the one adopted by my Sifu. his opinion is that an instructor's duty is to promote a complete a picture of martial arts as possible, and that this means participating in public shows to add the instructor's own voice to the voices of others at the events. if this means that the instructor is the only one demonstrating combat applications of kung fu, then so be it...at least there is someone there doing so. to my Sifu, if there is nobody there demonstrating combat applications, then nobody will ever know. and that would only serve to hurt kung fu. in which case, who's really to blame for the state of kung fu? audience, one-sided instructors, or the serious masters?

which approach is truly the right one? i don't know. i think different people have to decide for themselves, and recognize and accept the consequences of their decisions.

as for me? i'm still deciding.