I’m going to revisit the topic of a previous post, I intend to make a habit of this when I think I have a bit more to say on the matter.
Many systems, be they religious, secular or whatever have people who will hold that only a system must be “authentic”, for example, I was taught Cheng Man-Ch’ing style Tai Chi. This is quite a controversial style, as it was derived from the Yang family style without their authorisation. So it can be argued to be not “authentic”. Yet the man who taught me is undeniably effective in applying it, it is most certainly effective, I know he’s sparred and competed with it.
So why push this concept of authentic? I feel it can be a combination of ego on the part of the student, not just of martial arts, but also of religion, and clever salesmanship of their ‘brand’ on the part of the school/church. But also of the attractive desire, to pass the responsibility of deciding what we believe or know to be effective to someone else, and to have the reassurance of a collective.
Let’s think about that a minute. If you do the freethought thing, criticising and deciding for yourself, you always have to face the distinct possibility of being out in the cold, out on a limb, or under fire for heresy. Cheng Man-Ch’ing did his own thing, and the results are still controversial today, never mind the flak Darwin drew for thinking outside the box.
Maybe it is easier to keep your head down, but without people who are prepared to wander off into places marked “Here Be Dragons” and make their own way, we’d probably still be sitting in caves.
It is my opinion that the term “authentic” when applied to any martial art simply means the teaching is consistent with the originators viewpoint and the lineage from the originator to the “authentic” teacher, sensi or sifu is intact as opposed to someone who never actually learned the style in point teaching it based on their intrepretation of the forms and movements.
I think all martial arts have their value and the art chosen should be in harmony with the students temperment, objectives and physiology.
There is nothing wrong with “interpretations” as such in my humble opinion but if someone says “I teach authentic whatever” I naturally assume they are a disciple of a disciple ultimately leading back to the originator and they have chosen to maintain the actual teachings of that particular style as opposed to a modification or intrepretation of it.