The tragedy of Tai Chi teaching

[allen2saint]

Wayne, I didn't say one "had to" I said they paid their dues and developed over time and included "being shaolin" in their identity because they weren't caught up in all these dogmas about what they were and weren't. I've never heard anyone say that shaolin does not form a foundation.

And Steve, I don't really know how you can "know" that an artist's development over time wasn't cumulative. You can speculate but I think time and simple stuff like looking at his entire life's work in the order it was achieved is a pretty big proof that it was.

Although I do agree that its a poor analogy. If we say good MA is only what "works" as in, what kills or maims someone, that we're speaking of utility only and not assessing the entirety of the art or the intentions of the creators or practitioners.

A teacher I knew who was supposed to be quite good said he was a mediation teacher more than anything else. Bob Smith's books say the same thing.

[Steve James]

And Steve, I don't really know how you can "know" that an artist's development over time wasn't cumulative.

I'm saying the opposite, actually. An artist's eventual production --especially if it's substantially different from what came before-- is not the product of any one thing, in this case, not (Picasso's) draftsmanship or control of paint. I'm not trying to make a general point about martial arts; nor do I mean that Picasso or Brach's prior training did not influence their eventual creative expression. I think that this is why there has not been another Van Gogh or even Andy Warhol.

Anyway, my main point is about Picasso and the cubists. They all had traditional training (i.e., painted conventionally) beforehand, but there was nothing else. What made them exceptionelles was what they got from other sources.

When it comes to martial arts, I think basic "gongfu" training is a great foundation. But, I don't think that everyone will agree with what that training should be.

[allen2saint]

Again, Steve, I think that's some pretty risky conjecture. The man learned what he learned and his artistic sensibilities were fully active, as well as his visual composition skills and his actual manual skill when he painted that later work. He didn't copy the subject matter, right? The many pretenders that came after, how did they do? If it's all just looking at African art and having a go at it, then why didn't the inquiry into African art birth several Picassos? The same with the faux Pollacks and the faux impressionists and pointalists. They had no structure. No basis. It's like the kids who learn to "write songs" based on what they hear on the radio now. Unless they have some deeper understanding of music composition, they are doomed to simply imitate their unfluences, as Picassos many fanboys did. He could change because he had skill.

[Steve James]

If it's all just looking at African art and having a go at it, then why didn't the inquiry into African art birth several Picassos?

Never even implied that it was all just looking at African art. In fact, I said that some suggest that his "Blue" or "Negro" period also referred to the clinical depression he was suffering. Afa others, a guy named Braque is considered the co-founder of cubism. And, fwiw, African "art" (which is actually a contradiction, let's just say sculpture) became the basis for much of "modern" art, generally. Modigliani is just one example.

Anyway, there's nothing you can point to in Picasso's earlier work that led up to his cubism. Your claim was that his previous training (in traditional representational art) enabled him to do his cubist work: i.e., "it" laid the foundation. That's the supposition.

Or, look up Brancusi.

[allen2saint]

Again and again Steve, you say "previous training" as if there was some cubism class somewhere. His artistic ideas and skills grew. That enabled his ever widening range of his work. Everything the man saw, from a raindrop to the art other people made, were taken in to make more art. But if he were some artistic neophyte, all he ever would have been able to do is imitate these particular styles. He did not do that. He continued and he grew. Look at his subject matter in his blue period. His imitators were only able to churn out poor imitations of these things.

I will close my involvement here,but I think its clear to that the development of foundational skills enables a wider, more varied range of expression in the arts. An artist with a foundation can adapt and an artist who can only imitate, has a very limited skill set. Not insignificant, as copying the masters teaches you, too, but Picasso had a deep, varied skill set and aesthetic and it came from hard work.

[Steve James]

Well, you posted two pictures and asserted a connection of one to the other. That's your opinion. I gave my counter examples, specific to Picasso, but applicable to other artists. When I say "previous training," it means "practicing art" (which means drawing and painting), hours of it over a long period of time. That's what Da Vinci, Michelangelo, and artists have always done. It's absolutely true. You want to learn to draw? Buy Leonardo's sketchbook and copy it, er, try to copy it. When you say foundation (in terms of art), I really don't know what you mean apart from copying the works of earlier masters. I doubt that many can actually point to a Picasso work and pick out the technical aspects or explain his brush technique. But, those are not why we know of Picasso. Moreover, we're talking about "art" across cultures. What Chinese or Japanese painter had to study which European art or artistic tradition in order to create art? In fact, Brancusi and other early 20th century artists were also influenced by Asian and "oriental" (then including Egypt) art. So, I deny your premise when it comes to art. I'm not trying to say that a strong foundation or hard work is not necessary.

[Bao]

. What Chinese or Japanese painter had to study which European art or artistic tradition in order to create art? In fact, Brancusi and other early 20th century artists were also influenced by Asian and "oriental" (then including Egypt) art.

Very, very few individualists in traditional chinese painting achieve any fame. Chinese tradition is the opposite to what Picasso and the modernists did. Chinese painters only copy what other people have done, the old traditional techniques. There is no room for individuality, experimenting or adding humor. Everything that don't match narrow rules is regarded as wrong and bad. Copying is good, being similar is great. This is the mind set I write about, something I really, really, hate about Chinese teaching system and something that is deeply rooted in modern tai chi. Very sad IMHO.

[Steve James]

I haven't studied Chinese art, but there are quite a few Chinese modern artists. It's true that none will probably reach the status of Van Gogh or Picasso or even Warhol. But, I don't think it's true that they are slaves to tradition, though. The most famous is Wu Guanzhong, http://danielyunhx.com/2010/06/29/fathe ... guanzhong/

I also think that traditional Chinese painting declined during Mao's time. I think there are probably fewer traditional Chinese painters than modernists now. I think this is also true for ima in the west. Imo, there's clearly a question of how the cimas will evolve, whether it will be more toward martial effectiveness or toward promoting health or toward being illustrations of artistic physicality. Of course, combining all would be good too
Here's another artist who sort of illustrates the global connections --which is another feature of "modernist." Not saying that's good or bad.

[Bao]

I haven't studied Chinese art, but there are quite a few Chinese modern artists. It's true that none will probably reach the status of Van Gogh or Picasso or even Warhol. But, I don't think it's true that they are slaves to tradition, though. The most famous is Wu Guanzhong, http://danielyunhx.com/2010/06/29/fathe ... guanzhong/

Wu Guanzhong is a wonderful painter, but as I said, very, very few get any kind of appreciation. There are much modern artists in China. But now I only speak about traditional painting method and how to use traditional technique in a more modern age. And how to be individualistic in a very strict conservative tradition.

I also think that traditional Chinese painting declined during Mao's time. I think there are probably fewer traditional Chinese painters than modernists now.

It's not about decline. It's about tradition. I have a set of books, in total 8000 pages, covering the history of Chinese painting and calligraphy, from the earliest paintings until today. Not much have changed. A few today tries to break tradition. Most of them are silenced quickly or not being taken seriously. And I think you are completely wrong about the situation today. The situation is more or less like the early modern time in the west when people laughed at the painters that are considered the earliest masters of modern art. The chinese teaching system teach the people how to not think, it surpress creativity and the voice of individual thinking. Everything is about learning from a standard and copy. Modernism demands free thinking and the ability to look on society from an outside position. This is what chinese are taught to lack.

Imo, there's clearly a question of how the cimas will evolve, whether it will be more toward martial effectiveness or toward promoting health or toward being illustrations of artistic physicality. Of course, combining all would be good too

The problem I am trying to address is not about how things should evolve, but that the modern chinese education system dictates how CIMA should be taught. The students learn how to follow without thinking. They don't get the tools on how to claim ownership of what is taught, how to really own and take responsibility for what they learn.

Here's another artist who sort of illustrates the global connections --which is another feature of "modernist." Not saying that's good or bad.

Awesome paintings, looks a bit like Miro. Especially the first one. And Miro is a God.

[Steve James]

Well, when it comes to what is being taught at the Chinese "physical academies," I think that the rote repetition is traditional. I'm not sure that there's a problem because I don't think there's a necessity for such academies outside of physical education. I don't think they're there to carry on a tradition. Not a few of my Taiwanese friends would say that these academies were designed to control the martial tradition, not to continue it. Be that as it may, I don't think there's really a solution. There are only goals.

Artists, otoh, don't always have goals apart from self-expression. Anyway, my point with the paintings from the 70s is precisely that they were influenced by western artists who were influenced by Asian and other forms of art. "That" is what makes modern ... modern. For ex., like this one or not, it's modern "Chinese" art.

Otoh, the artist who painted the pictures that remind you of Miro (Huang Yu) wanted to bring back traditional (to him, folk) art, but he had drawn cartoons during the Japanese occupation --and, iinm, he wrote the lyrics to China's national anthem. His work had to be rediscovered. He's probably in your book.

[Bao]

Well, when it comes to what is being taught at the Chinese "physical academies," I think that the rote repetition is traditional. I'm not sure that there's a problem because I don't think there's a necessity for such academies outside of physical education. I don't think they're there to carry on a tradition.

Martial arts are not about physical repetition. Or a very little part of them is.
... The surface that is.

IMA is about body awareness, sensitivity, understanding your own limits. If you don't dig deep inside yourself and make the art your ow property, it will be just an external exercise as gymnastics. And this is what IMA becomes by the modern teaching system of watching, repeating. Not understand what is correct from within, not understanding how to become aware in the movement. Not thinking. Just copying and repeating the standard of the common teachers.

Artists, otoh, don't always have goals apart from self-expression as a goal. Most chinese people are taught to not express themselves,

Chinese artist of traditional arts seldom has.

I'll take a break now from writing on this subject and I am going to bang my head in the wall instead. it's very clear that no one here understand the problems that I address. Easier to speak to the wall.

[Steve James]

The theme of this thread is "the tragedy of tai chi teaching." I don't see any tragedy, and I don't see any solution. It's all about goals, and what the individual practitioner wants. If you can't find someone to teach you what you need, then you probably didn't need it anyway. No reason to lament. I also don't think there's any problem specific to tcc (or cima) that isn't present in other martial arts. Is it better to train in a McDojo or with "tree huggers"? Of course, maybe the title of the thread and the emphasis should be on the internal conflicts within the cima. There are more put downs of other practitioners and practices than not. Even if true, they haven't done any good; and they've done, and continue to do, quite a bit of harm. The only saving grace is that it's irrelevant in the teeny tiny world of "cima."