The tragedy of Tai Chi teaching

[Bao]

. The point is that Picasso developed a foundation through hard work and developing skills every visual artist had to develop. Then, after long years, he evolved into something completely unique.

My point is very much the opposite around. He didn't spend years painting completely traditional and then suddenly changed his style. He developed his personal style gradually and experimented with the medium right from the beginning. By always experimenting he built a strong foundation of his art as well as a personal style. What I really dislike is the thinking that you can not have two things at the same time or that one must follow the other. In my book a strong foundation is built through experimenting and personalization. It's not that you must first build something up and learn to play with it later. You play with it to learn it. But teachers love repetition without thinking, because if they teach their students that they don't need to think, they can keep their students as perpetual beginners, forever and ever. If students ask their teacher "when do I learn to fight with tai chi", they usually say that first you must learn form and after practicing the form for many years, you will automatically learn to defend yourself with the art. This is a common scam. Sadly, many students listen to and trust their teacher because they look up to him. This thinking in dichotomies clears the path to many kind of scams. But of course, is the students' own fault because they are too stupid to think by themselves.

[windwalker]

1508, Pope Julius II asked Michelangelo for proof of his talent. Michelangelo replied by drawing a perfect circle, free-hand.

the work of many yrs and deep understanding.

[allen2saint]

. The point is that Picasso developed a foundation through hard work and developing skills every visual artist had to develop. Then, after long years, he evolved into something completely unique.

My point is very much the opposite around. He didn't spend years painting completely traditional and then suddenly changed his style. He developed his personal style gradually and experimented with the medium right from the beginning. By always experimenting he built a strong foundation of his art as well as a personal style. What I really dislike is the thinking that you can not have two things at the same time or that one must follow the other. In my book a strong foundation is built through experimenting and personalization. It's not that you must first build something up and learn to play with it later. You play with it to learn it. But teachers love repetition without thinking, because if they teach their students that they don't need to think, they can keep their students as perpetual beginners, forever and ever. If students ask their teacher "when do I learn to fight with tai chi", they usually say that first you must learn form and after practicing the form for many years, you will automatically learn to defend yourself with the art. This is a common scam. Sadly, many students listen to and trust their teacher because they look up to him. This thinking in dichotomies clears the path to many kind of scams. But of course, is the students' own fault because they are too stupid to think by themselves.

"Suddenly changed his style?" Do you know a thing about Picasso? His art developed over years and it changed. But it developed through understanding fundamentals. How did he develop those fundamentals? By doing them over and over. That does personalize it! Doing it helps you learn about it. Unlike many of his peers, Picasso's vision developed into many, many expressions, but they came through his development of artistic fundamentals. Picasso's career is a testament to the development of an art over time, which really, proves my point. Where did I advocate thoughtless work? Where did I advocate for rote reputation without thought or understanding? There are bad teachers everywhere and there are good ones.

[Steve James]

When discussing Picasso, remember, he did years and years of this:



Before he was capable of this:



And when fools in the art world went right to the latter to ape his style, their lack of skill showed.

Much with acting or any other art, you need to build a foundation before you can create and go to that "empty place."

However, pick any great artist from Leonardo to Jackson Pollack, and you'll find the same thing. I.e., no matter how long anyone studied "classical" art, the best that anyone accomplished was copying or imitation. So, although Picasso practiced drawing and painting techniques, they weren't what inspired the cubist or primitivist work that we associate him with. Those ideas came from his interest in African masks and statuary, and as many believe, a bout of clinical depression. But, the ideas also directly influenced Modigliani and others.

My point, btw, is not that Picasso's skill as a draftsman/painter allowed him to execute his work with great technique. Instead, I want to note that improvisation is not the product of classical training. Some jazz musicians are classically trained, but many aren't. There are those without any training. Either way, the end result is an expression of an individual's imagination that can't be recreated no matter the training. That, imo, is the similarity to martial arts. Training (or just practice) is a preparation for self-expression. Some of the people who inspired Picasso's art had no classical training at all. Maybe that is what was necessary for Picasso to express himself.

[charles]

He developed his personal style gradually and experimented with the medium right from the beginning.

Okay, let's take your premise and work with it.

I'm a beginning Taiji student. I come to you to "learn the art". I tell you I want to "be good at it, someday". What does my first lesson look like with you as a "creative teacher"? Do you just start punching at my face and say, "Find creative ways to not get hit in the face"? If I turn around and run, is that, then, Taijiquan?

What do you teach me? Where does my "creativity" enter into that lesson? Does your providing me with physical correction interfere with my creativity, when I just want to "feel it" and "sway with the music of the heavenly orbs" and call that "Taijiquan"? I'll be happy to mention your name to my students as the one who taught me all that I know.

The debate over the need of formal training comes up often in the discussion of popular music. So-and-so is a great musician, having never taken a lesson in his life and can't read music. Without question, there are a small number of "geniuses" who, without any formal training, are exceptional at what they do. They are an exceptionally small percentage of the population. The rest of the population, those that attain any real skill, get there through formal training and a lot of hard work. The vast majority have little formal training, don't put in the hours necessary and attain mediocrity, at best, but find some enjoyment at their level of ability. It's a Bell curve.

So, at whom is your teaching methodology aimed? Those who are inherent geniuses? Those few who will work like hell to get it? The average student who will never "get it"? Now where is the "tragedy of Tai Chi teaching" and what is it's cause? A "great" student will get it regardless of the teacher; a hard-working student might get it after many years of work; an un-gifted, non-motivated student will never get it. To re-frame it in your terminology, a "creative" student will get it regardless of the teacher; a hard-working, non-creative student might get it after many years of work; a non-creative, non-motivated student will never get it.

[Bao]

Charles, I don't think you haven't understood a word, as you are turning it again into a dichotomy. There is no learning foundation vs experimenting and personalization. Building foundation needs personalization. If you want to experiment you need something to work with. If you are going to cut with paper and scissors you first need paper and scissors. The first thing you must learn when shaping cheramics is how to center the clay. Otherwise you have nothing to work with.

You speak about music? Interesting. There are two very different philosophies of teaching. One is about repetition and learning notes. The other is about learning through ear training and auras skills. I prefer the latter. In tai chi, I don't like teachers who just show and correct stances. I prefer when a teacher teach their students to feel by themselves what is a correct stance and when they become correct. I don't like techniques, I like working freely from principles. I don't like strict rules, I like students to find out why people consider them rules and why they stick to certain principles. Most traditional martial arts training is very much the opposite to what I believe in. Much of that I don't like is not designed to really teach, but to keep students from repeating without learning, so they will stay students and keep on paying the fees.

[Bao]

Charles, I don't think you haven't understood a word, as you are turning it again into a dichotomy. There is no learning foundation vs experimenting and personalization. Building foundation needs personalization. If you want to experiment you need something to work with. If you are going to cut with paper and scissors you first need paper and scissors. The first thing you must learn when shaping cheramics is how to center the clay. Otherwise you have nothing to work with.

You speak about music? Interesting. There are two very different philosophies of teaching. One is about repetition and learning notes. The other is about learning through ear training and auras skills. I prefer the latter. In tai chi, I don't like teachers who just show and correct stances. I prefer when a teacher teach their students to feel by themselves what is a correct stance and when they become correct. I don't like techniques, I like working freely from principles. I don't like strict rules, I like students to find out why people consider them rules and why they stick to certain principles. Most traditional martial arts training is very much the opposite to what I believe in. Much of that I don't like is not designed to really teach, but to keep students from repeating without learning, so they will stay students and keep on paying the fees.

A "great" student will get it regardless of the teacher; a hard-working student might get it after many years of work; an un-gifted, non-motivated student will never get it. To re-frame it in your terminology, a "creative" student will get it regardless of the teacher; a hard-working, non-creative student might get it after many years of work; a non-creative, non-motivated student will never get it.

That's a point, but I don't agree with it. A bad teacher can destroy a great student's motivation and the whole interest for the art. Just like a bad marriage can destroy a great loving, caring person's faith in love.

[Steve James]

Well, I think there's a confusion between training and practice. In terms of art, there are straight lines and curves, and then there are issues like shading and creating perspective. Leaning how to use those to create "art" takes practice. Nobody becomes a good draftsperson without hours of drawing. No one becomes a good musician without hours of practice. "Training" as it has been used here seems to imply something specific that can't be applied to music, art, or dance. Take dance. It is not necessary to train ballet to do modern dance or tap. They are different disciplines that all require hours of practice.

In terms of music, classically-trained people are not always or usually the best improvisationists or jazz musicians. At least, there's absolutely no connection between the two. Any classical pianist will have to practice in order to play jazz. This is not the same as "playing by ear" either. Wynton Marsalis is a rarity, not the usual. There's no more classical guitar that Spanish flamenco, but I don't think there are many rock guitarists who've actually practiced it, or that it was required for Clapton, Hendrix or Stevie Ray Vaughn. Though, they'd all know Django Rinehart.

Imo, ya'll are arguing about a completely different issue, creating false, irrelevant dichotomies, and using masters and their arts as your benchmarks. It is a given that no one gets anywhere without practice. What the right and wrong practices are is where there are arguments.

[Bao]

Imo, ya'll are arguing about a completely different issue, creating false, irrelevant dichotomies,

Won't comment the rest of yr post, but this is something that I agree 100% with.

[willie]

Reading all this, I'm thinking...
The real tragedy is what I call "follow Mr. Jones".
It's like a wave of people in the audience voicing opinions based on hear say.
This wave is the root of the problem, As most true masters say nothing and a lot of them show no personal training methods.
I don't blame people for not sharing video's. I don't like too either. So what's worst, Not sharing? Or risking public scrutiny?

Truth is in Taijiquan there is no hiding. The people who truly understand what they are seeing will
have no questions to ask. Not a word to utter...

[charles]

If you want to experiment you need something to work with. If you are going to cut with paper and scissors you first need paper and scissors. The first thing you must learn when shaping cheramics is how to center the clay. Otherwise you have nothing to work with.

We are entirely in agreement about this.

Much of that I don't like is not designed to really teach, but to keep students from repeating without learning, so they will stay students and keep on paying the fees.

Another way of stating what you have said is that not many teachers are good at teaching. They, too, lie on a Bell curve: some are gifted, others are terrible, lots are just in the middle and marginally effective. The gifted teachers encourage experimentation and creativity by teaching in a way that fosters it. Others teach by rote.

Again, sounds like we are entirely in agreement. We just chose to express it or describe it differently.

[Gringorn]

If you really want to learn foundation, you must make it your own property. You really make it your own property by understanding it by yourself. To understand it by yourself, from yourself, you must experiment and be able to judge by yourself what is right and what is wrong. Dogmatic teaching without thinking and without creativity is the opposite to really teach something. 99% of the tai chi teachers teach their students to copy, not to how to think or develop something within themselves. Another post of "this is how things should be" won't help anyone to develop true understanding of the art. Thinking is not doing. Doing without thinking and judging is not really learning.

Like GM Sam Chin always points out: Training is a process of recognizing and realizing, not imitating and accumulating.


Regarding Charles' "Do you just start punching at my face and say, "Find creative ways to not get hit in the face"? If I turn around and run, is that, then, Taijiquan?"

One of the most interesting and effective teaching methods I have encountered is "guided self discovery". I got this from my first session with Amok!
I was given a knife and the other guy had a knife, and within a couple of minutes, I had discovered several fundamental aspects of knife fighting. This was then made clearer by guided follow up-questions afterwards. I've found the same thing with several of Rory Miller's drills, many of which would fit nicely with tai chi training. You begin with discovering principles - instead of learning techniques. The great thing with this is that what you discover, really belongs to you. You recognize it yourself and get a "deeper" understanding, rather than someone telling you it, understanding it intelectually, repeating it countless times until something is there, etc.

Great way to boost the learning curve, and should be fundamental in teaching, IMO.

[allen2saint]

However, pick any great artist from Leonardo to Jackson Pollack, and you'll find the same thing. I.e., no matter how long anyone studied "classical" art, the best that anyone accomplished was copying or imitation.

This is also untrue. Picasso produced more realistic work. He didn't just study it. He made it as he evolved. And while I agree he saw other arts, a lot of people saw them, but he adapted the elements because he had a strong skill set and he understood the medium.

Monet? The pointalists? That work sprang from their understanding of the medium, form, color, composition, positive and negative spaces, etc.

I just heard a story about a friend who met Glenn Frey. She has a guitar in her hand. He took it from her and played some old classic like "Falling Leaves" or something. You really think his ability to play that stuff did not feed into his Eagles work?

All I know is the MA teachers I respect most are very open about their foundations, which are mostly Shaolin and other so called "hard" styles and all say they worked their asses off to build them.

[wayne hansen]

Pablo spent his whole life trying to get back to the simplicity of primitive art
He said we have invented nothing
Pretty Taoist
Saying you have to learn hard style to understand the soft only comes from those who havent

[Steve James]

Well, I just think there's no connection between Picasso's training (begun under his father) with his eventual inventions (or co-inventions) of cubism and collage. In terms of realistic representation, there are many people with no training who have enormous talent. Stephen Wiltshire (an autistic) can draw a city from memory after seeing it once. The guy who did this drawing is entirely self taught, but could Picasso do better?

Photorealistic artists today don't have better training; they have the advantage of better materials, tools and they can copy photographs. Some say, however, that what they do isn't art. So, I am primarily addressing a prejudice. "Art" existed long before any art school and didn't start in Greece or Babylon. What people often mean by "art" is "technique," but that isn't everyone's definition.

I think that most of today's "martial arts" are defined by the fact that the training has become the goal. There's no real necessity for performance. Well, if doing harm to others or self-defense is the goal, it is the exception and not the rule for many if not most martial artists. That's not to say that practitioners don't have valid goals. It's just that they're different and there's not going to be agreement about appropriate training.