Slim wrote:If I honestly consider my practice of Taijiquan as on some level performance, no matter how abstract I take the notion of performance to be I don't seem to be able to do it. What I have learnt from my teachers, even in terms of the 'basic' form, is not performance as everything we practice is martially accounted for. There is nothing superfluous that might be the leftover influence of some sordid past affair with the world of theatre. And what is the 'basic' form of a system? From my experience both within the Quan of Chen Yu and my Wu style Taijiquan Teacher the form is constantly modified as a student progresses, there is no basic nor standard routine to perform. And from a martial perspective why would one show his Quan to another anyway?
As a student of Chinese history I can see that the ties between some martial art and theatre throughout Chinese history are no doubt strong and manifold. However as a practitioner within a specific tradition I just can't see it within what I practice, and doubt it was ever there.
Slim and all that call the Ideas around MA and Theatre ridiculous: Did you at least read a bit of the article given by winter dragon? I can understand that you are afraid that your hard training could be messed with "just being show" like the modern wushu stuff. But that's not what the Article and SP say. It's about Martial (real) Training and Theater combat developing in close interaction and benefiting from each other.
E.G.:
"...Robert Fortune, an Englishman, witnessed one such performance in rural
China sometime between 1853 and 1856, and left the following account:
An actor rushed upon the stage amid the clashing of timbrels, beating
of gongs, and squeaking of other instruments. He was brandishing a
short sword in each hand, now and then wheeling round apparently to
protect himself in the rear, and all the time performing the most
extraordinary actions with his feet, which seemed as if they had to do
as much of the fighting as the hands. People who have seen much of the
manoeuvering of Chinese troops will not call this unnatural acting.
[68]
As Fortune noted, such stage fighting was an accurate, if exaggerated,
portrayal of actual Chinese fighting techniques. It would be a mistake,
however, to dismiss this theatrical tradition as a mere imitation of the
real martial arts. Image and reality have reflected each other for
millennia, and real martial artists have often found the most practical use
for their skills in earning a living as entertainers.
In late imperial times Boxers toured the countryside, fighting in
competitions at market fairs as a way of life......
...In China the martial arts are far more than just techniques of hand-to-hand
combat, although actual fighting skills are indeed traceable far back into
antiquity. In China the martial arts are an aspect of religion, with all of
the attendant mystery and miracles. At the same time, the public face of
the martial arts has often been that of the entertainer, and the self-image
of the martial artist has been thoroughly imbued with motifs drawn from
fiction and the theater. The martial arts of today must be understood as a
confluence of China's unique approach to physical combat, Buddho-Taoist
religion, and theater"
I think somewhere I have a book on this topic by scott (?) worth a read
_color_cropped.jpg/50px-Titania_(moon)_color_cropped.jpg)
I mean if the feet are "same" and the arms different, there is a temptation to see the similaritie, - which is an important hermeneutic ability - but we should also consider differences for what they are and accept that partial similaritiers don't make exercises identical, given that there is a limited amoount of possible positions with the given limbs and joints 
