What makes an art "modern"?

[Red J]

A thread http://www.karateforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=156950#156950 in the general section lead me to pose the following question:

 

What makes an art "modern"? Is it the date of its inception? Is it the degree that it doesn't follow past protocol? Just what is it? Can an art started in the 1950s still be traditional? What about the 1980s? Will the latest styles be considered traditional 100 years from now? I hear all this rant on tradition versus modern and I can't help to think that the arts that were started in the early and mid 1900s were probably considered "modern" by some of the "old school" at that time. Anyway, I thought that this would be a good topic to discuss so that we can straighten it all out (or at least hear some good discussion).

[granmasterchen]

good post, makes you think, an even better question (i think) is :

 

does a modern style make it better than traditional? does tradition make it better than modern?

 

i think that regardless of the time that the style was created, an art is passed on knowledge from one master to another through out time, i may see something that i like from one style and incorporate it into my style, 20 yrs from now one of my students may create their own style based on my teachings but add some new stuff that they have seen and call it something new. That modern style is still based on my modern style that is based on my masters modern style that was based on his masters which eventually will turn into a traditional style somewhere on the timeline. So what i am saying is that if a style is effective , that is all that matters, we shouldn't bicker about who's style is traditional or what, because if you break it all down all styles have roots in traditional styles...and if it works and we are happy with our own style and it helps us grow into better human beings and martial artists then that should be all that matters. Thanks for starting this thread, lots of thought can come from this.

[italian_guy]

I've already posted in the original thread anyway...

 

I think that it is not a matter of when the art was established that makes it modern or traditional.The difference is in the attitude. A modern martial art teach you how to fight (in the ring or in the street).A TMA teaches you a way to achieve personal enhancement throu fighting. A TMA has more cultural aspects then a modern MA. On the other hand a Modern Martial art is more fight efficient, in the sense that you achive a certain level of fighting proficiency earlier than in a TMA.

[ramymensa]

For me a traditiona MA is one with some decades of existance (the more the better) , with a well established pholosophy and etiquette, a certain way of dressing and adressing ... with some scientific fundaments and of course some tradition

 

Regarding the other question, by chosing Shotokan I've made my choise public. For me TMA is better. Maybe I'll come to change my mind, but for now it suites me like a glove

[White Warlock]

As many of us subconsciously know, labeling is a means to simplify. I'm rich, you're poor. You're ugly, i'm handsome. You're white, he's black. That's traditional, this is modern. Such things are crude shortcuts of communication. A means to cut through all the red tape of itemization and justification, to categorize things that are essentially relative.

 

So... having said that, my view on the labels of traditional and that of modern, is that traditional systems hold to philosophical roots and incorporate a degree of ritual while modern does not. Boxing and wrestling has been around for ages, but nobody would call them traditional. And yet, we refer to aikido, judo, tkd, and most of the karate systems, babies (based on age) in comparison to the majority of Chinese systems, as traditional.

 

Edit: One more thing i mark as the difference between that of traditional and that of modern. Resistance to change. Traditional systems adhere to the original doctrine, while modern systems do not. Boxing and wrestling have existed for centuries, yet they have undergone many changes, and will continue to do so.

[Red J]

i think that regardless of the time that the style was created, an art is passed on knowledge from one master to another through out time, i may see something that i like from one style and incorporate it into my style, 20 yrs from now one of my students may create their own style based on my teachings but add some new stuff that they have seen and call it something new. That modern style is still based on my modern style that is based on my masters modern style that was based on his masters which eventually will turn into a traditional style somewhere on the timeline.

 

Good insight...I guess when you boil it down, there is nothing really original about any style as it has all been passed down and is constantly evolving. The originality can be made by how you incorporate and personalize it. The art or style is really what you make of it.

 

 

my view on the labels of traditional and that of modern, is that traditional systems hold to philosophical roots and incorporate a degree of ritual while modern does not.

 

How much of a degree? This very detail has probably been the reason for many a disagreement in the MA community.

 

Thanks for the responses. Any more thoughts?

[White Warlock]

Is there 'any' ritual in boxing, wrestling, bjj, or shootfighting? In the context of my usage, i was referring to them having ritual... but i think you missed the word i used prior to the word "degree" -

 

"traditional systems hold to philosophical roots and incorporate a degree of ritual"

 

The important part here is having philosophical roots. The amount of ritual is not nearly as important as the philosophical mindset stemming from an adherence to ancient philosophies (i.e., philosophical roots).

[Red J]

Is there 'any' ritual in boxing, wrestling, bjj, or shootfighting? In the context of my usage, i was referring to them having ritual... but i think you missed the word i used prior to the word "degree" -

 

Sure they have ritual (I can only speak to wrestling), but probably not in the text that you may be speaking of. Many well known wrestling programs are built on tradition and ritual (Dan Gable comes to mind), with principles of integrity and hard work as core beliefs (I'm sure these are ancient beliefs). Rituals are more individualized to the programs, coaches, or athletes themselves. I will admit that comparing these to MA, it is apples to oranges.

 

Thanks for responding. Your point is well taken and I really do know what you mean.

 

[Treebranch]

Modern MA's for the most part are tailored for today needs, whether it be sport of street defense. Most Traditional MA's were created in times where fighting was truely the only way to protect yourself. I think there is a lot of Modern styles that are questionable as well as there being many Traditional styles that are just a questionable. So basically most modern MA's have never been used in actually combat except for a few.