Many of the debates in the Wing Chun world today focus on the question of lineage. People want to know which expression of Wing Chun best captures its essential essence? Which is truly “authentic”? Often it is assumed that authenticity must be expressed in terms of history. Some individuals then conclude that the branch of Wing Chun which is the oldest must the most “true.”
Needless to say this entire exercise is problematic. There are too many undefined terms and leaps of logic in the foregoing statement to count. Yet this sort of reasoning is what is driving a lot of the public conversation on Wing Chun these days, lacuna and all. Side stepping the issue of “authenticity” for a moment (a topic complex enough to deserve a post in its own right), I have real doubts that the pure expression of anything is really linked to its oldest form (or better yet, our best attempt to recreate it).
The truth is that things change for a reason. Historically speaking, all martial arts, almost without exception, have been forced to reinvent themselves in every generation in order to survive. Every true Sifu or Sensei instructs his or her students not just to be a clone, but to rise to ever greater heights. And occasionally this actually happens. As a result our arts change, grow and evolve over time. They adapt to new markets and new economic conditions almost continually. What was done in the late 1700s or the mid-Ming dynasty can never truly be replicated today. Deal with it, and consider some other ways of defining “authenticity.”
No comments:
Post a Comment