Aikido and Art

So, Johns been trying with all of his might to get me interested in Aikido. I know it's useful and I know it will help my judo and visa versa, but it just seems sooo boring in the beginning. I think if I can just get into the habit of doing it I will eventually grow to like it. I preferred Aikido originally, because it didn't involve me being thrown to the ground... but once I got it out of the way at Pat's I really grew a liking for judo... so I'm hoping I'll have something that will eventually switch the aikido light on in my head.

It was interesting though, John was explaining that once you knew the basic principles of Judo and Aikido, you can learn the art easier. Because it becomes more of the ideas and concepts, like 'get the heck out of the way and put your hands up' and from there you can sort of... I dunno, freestyle I suppose? Or improvise, or be able to hold my own if I was attacked somewhere. I think it would really help me in ground randori (I hope I spelled that right?) because it doesn't seem like you'll ever have a very blatantly obvious opening to do a specific move the way it was taught. Although Andi got me really quickly with a choke a couple of nights ago... I'll just have to train myself up and then attack when he leasts expects it *mwahaha*

I think that's why I like the ground randori though... it's very realistic. I'm interested to see if I can stick with the aikido though. Because John said that while judo is very instantaneously rewarding, once you do something or get something just right in aikido, it's 10 times better.

BUT ANYWAY. Back to what I was originally trying to convey. I just thought it was really interesting that he pointed out that I should focus on the basic principles and ideas of Judo and aikido first. Because it's essentially the same with art. There are the basic principles and elements of design, and they're like the commandments of art. A lot of people have trouble with Modern art and argue whether or not it's "really" art. Take a Jackson Pollock painting for example. Critics of his time said it looked like something a child could have done. Yet Pollock has key elements and principles in his painting that make it appealing to the eye. It has rhythm and movement to the piece (hence, it is called action painting), as well as varying textures, although not readily visible in the above link. It also has balance and repetition. It's these basic principles assorted in a persons own personal way, to give us such great pieces of art.

Ah, but there is always that tricky final element. Plenty of crappy paintings of seagulls and beaches exist on the walls of cheap motels across the world, but why would someone not consider it art? I think it's that emotional intuitive aspect of creating art that just was or wasn't present. When Jackson Pollock painted, he thrashed paint on the canvas, dropped cigarette butts into it, and generally got completely caught up in just the motions of expressing himself. So is it because of the basic design elements utilized or that emotional aspect of creating the piece itself that defines it as art? Did the person that painted that ugly seagull picture feel or try to express anything when painting it? And if they didn't, isn't it just then an emotional representation of their apathy towards the art? Or perhaps the artist was more tongue and cheek, and wanted to convey a severe sense of boredom in the piece?

The world may never know... O_O


John also explained to me that martial artist masters were more of a renaissance man, involving themselves in music and art. It reminded me of what my 3D teacher said about art.

"You're an artist. You don't need a reason to do sculpture or painting or installation art, you should be experimenting with it all. It's ALL art."

I just really like how closely related the two became as we talked about them (which we do a lot lol). It also makes me wonder too, is there a certain amount of showmanship/grace/emotion/monkeys in executing Judo and Aikido that makes it more appealing, or more fluent, just like with art? Or because the body is both what is the art and what is making the movements of the art, is it then indistinguishable between the act of creating and the creation itself....? If by cutting out the medium of art (canvas, clay, etc.) are you then left with art expression in its purest form?