New Editorial

[Webmaster]

A new ARMA Editorial has been posted in the Essays section:

Flawed Thesis Disorder: the Current Crisis of our Subject
http://www.thearma.org/essays/FlawedThesisDisorder.htm

[Samuel Bena]

I am a long lurker on these forums and have enjoyed Mr. Clements articles very much over the past years. However Mr.Clements once (a year of two in the past) mentioned that he is working on an article concerning western falchions , messers , backswords and the like. As a saber affectionado (my country was once a part of what was know "upper hungary" and a part of the hungarian and later habsburg crown, hence the passion) I am VERY much interested in those somewhat overlooked weapons of european fighting man and would LOVE to see/learn something more about them. Could you tell me the ETA on that article, or even is it is still in the process of writing at all ? (The only similar work that Ive read on this website was the "straight vs curved" blade article , that touched the issue only slightly )

Appologies if I posted this in the wrong thread , feel free to move it somewhere else. Personally, It seemed to me that my post didnt need a whole another thread.

Cheers ,
Samuel

[Webmaster]

You'll have to email Mr. Clements directly to ask him about that, he always has a head-spinning number of articles in development and priorities sometimes change on which ones get finished first. His email address is at the bottom of every page on this site. Don't expect an answer this weekend though, everyone's here in Houston for the International Gathering.

[Samuel Bena]

Thank you , I think Ill do that.

[Sam Nankivell]

I enjoyed it as usual, but I have to say the past couple of articles have mainly been ones about the philosophy of training in the arts we study. I enjoyed these articles, but I think there have recently been way too many compared to more technical or historical articles. What I look forward to would be more technical articles on aspects like timing or the mastercuts (http://www.thearma.org/essays/mastercuts.html) or historical articles on weapons or fighting culture (like http://www.thearma.org/essays/reresby.html).

Don't get me wrong, we need those articles about martial arts and research philosophy to help people establish good core principles, but too many can get to be a bit taxing and start to sound a bit redundant. I think the side-dishes shouldn't outnumber the main course .

[Matt Rovaris]

Sam, this is true. No offense to the author, but I found some of these to be not as well-researched as some others in the past.

For instance, the one about defining a martial art:

Where then does the element of Art come in to all this? Is it just semantics? There is arguably a certain subjective aspect in a martial art. In the same way that "art" itself is in the eye of the beholder, so too martial arts are sometimes in the hand of the wielder, so to speak. That is, the activity goes beyond scientific application of effectiveness and into the realm of meeting the individual practitioner's motives and goals that may have little to do with actual self-defense utility. (For example, it is possible to repeatedly defeat particular opponents in practice fighting yet still have them not acknowledge the undeniable faults or inferiority of their style, system, or method because for them it is just not about credible fighting ability.)

Or is the "art" aspect a matter of the individual creatively acting beyond mere technical application to combine and adapt higher concepts and principles for their personal need within a framework of certain values?

A bit more research would have revealed what was meant by art in the middle ages and ren. periods. Certainly not the modern notion of "subjective" or "individual creativity."

Matt

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

A bit more research would have revealed what was meant by art in the middle ages and ren. periods. Certainly not the modern notion of "subjective" or "individual creativity."

There is a great article here about this matter, by the way.

[Sal Bertucci]

Sam, this is true. No offense to the author, but I found some of these to be not as well-researched as some others in the past.

For instance, the one about defining a martial art:

Where then does the element of Art come in to all this? Is it just semantics? There is arguably a certain subjective aspect in a martial art. In the same way that "art" itself is in the eye of the beholder, so too martial arts are sometimes in the hand of the wielder, so to speak. That is, the activity goes beyond scientific application of effectiveness and into the realm of meeting the individual practitioner's motives and goals that may have little to do with actual self-defense utility. (For example, it is possible to repeatedly defeat particular opponents in practice fighting yet still have them not acknowledge the undeniable faults or inferiority of their style, system, or method because for them it is just not about credible fighting ability.)

Or is the "art" aspect a matter of the individual creatively acting beyond mere technical application to combine and adapt higher concepts and principles for their personal need within a framework of certain values?

A bit more research would have revealed what was meant by art in the middle ages and ren. periods. Certainly not the modern notion of "subjective" or "individual creativity."

Matt

I think something that should also be considered is A) The audience that the article is dirrected at and B) the purpose of the article.

(Without trying to put words in anyone's mouth.) I know full well that Mr. Clements knows the medeival meaning of the word "Art". There have been similar conversations on the ARMA Elist. Considering this, while expounding on the original meaning of the word would have been nice I feel that it would ultimate have been tangental to the sum of A and B as mentioned above.

[Nathan Dexter]

I'm starting to get sick of all these great articles. What am I supposed to complain about?

[Sal Bertucci]

I generally complain about horses, and why we can't eat them like other countries do. Not that I have a whole lot against the animals (Except a few), I'm curious as to the taste though.

[Matt Rovaris]

Sam, this is true. No offense to the author, but I found some of these to be not as well-researched as some others in the past.

For instance, the one about defining a martial art:

Where then does the element of Art come in to all this? Is it just semantics? There is arguably a certain subjective aspect in a martial art. In the same way that "art" itself is in the eye of the beholder, so too martial arts are sometimes in the hand of the wielder, so to speak. That is, the activity goes beyond scientific application of effectiveness and into the realm of meeting the individual practitioner's motives and goals that may have little to do with actual self-defense utility. (For example, it is possible to repeatedly defeat particular opponents in practice fighting yet still have them not acknowledge the undeniable faults or inferiority of their style, system, or method because for them it is just not about credible fighting ability.)

Or is the "art" aspect a matter of the individual creatively acting beyond mere technical application to combine and adapt higher concepts and principles for their personal need within a framework of certain values?

A bit more research would have revealed what was meant by art in the middle ages and ren. periods. Certainly not the modern notion of "subjective" or "individual creativity."

Matt

I think something that should also be considered is A) The audience that the article is dirrected at and B) the purpose of the article.

(Without trying to put words in anyone's mouth.) I know full well that Mr. Clements knows the medeival meaning of the word "Art". There have been similar conversations on the ARMA Elist. Considering this, while expounding on the original meaning of the word would have been nice I feel that it would ultimate have been tangental to the sum of A and B as mentioned above.

Well, but Sal, those not on the Arma e-list would get the wrong impression from reading the passage I quoted above. Art meant something specific, that can be summed up in a few words, like for instance "A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities." (From freedictionary.com)

Individual creativity and the eye of the beholder have nothing to do with art as understood historically in this context.

[Randall Pleasant]

Well, but Sal, those not on the Arma e-list would get the wrong impression from reading the passage I quoted above. Art meant something specific, that can be summed up in a few words, like for instance "A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities." (From freedictionary.com)

Individual creativity and the eye of the beholder have nothing to do with art as understood historically in this context.

Matt

Lighten up a little. We all know what Art was in the Medieval and Renaissance periods and we all know about Tom Leoni's article (which we like). However, that is not the context considered in the article, thus "art" was used as most people understand it today.

[Matt Rovaris]

Matt, fair enough.