Interviewer: Good evening, sifu. Thanks for agreeing to this interview. Can I ask you about form and function?
Sifu: OK. Certainly.
Interviewer: We hear the saying that form follows function. Do you agree with this?
Sifu: In a broad, superficial sense it seems to have some meaning. This is that the two ought to be related and that form should be functional, not flashy or esoteric and that function derives from form - nice and circular here (Laughs) - once you are initiated into the art. This is not rocket science - but it escapes the bulk of martial artists to be frank! But, on deeper analysis, it needs a deconstruction. The fuller saying derives from the Buddhist saying from the Heart Sutra: "form is emptiness; emptiness is form". This has been transposed into “form follows function, function follows form” by some martial artists. So, it derives from Buddhism and has been borrowed by martial arts. Actually architects say “form follows function”. Now maybe that’s something to think on. Does it have to, or not? Does it always?
Interviewer: OK. Interesting! So, do you think that form follows function?
Sifu: Well, not necessarily. Why? Because there could be a variety of forms to serve a function! Wing Chun has looked at this, in fact. Give it a moment’s thought. Straight punch to the middle inner gate area - how many forms can you think of that can close the gate? Tan - inner or outer, bong, pak. So, you see there is one function required but we can think of at least four forms. There are a few more, in fact. Long ago, our ancestors ruled out dysfunctional forms and unrealistic forms and selected the optimal form, or forms, to serve a function. Or, in many cases, they derived a form to serve many functions. So we can say form follows function but we have to appreciate that whilst our art reduces redundancy we nonetheless do have some functions that are served by more than one form. We might ask ourselves - which one came first, “form follows function”, or “function follows form”? This is just like which one came first, the chicken or the egg? This depends, in part, on how we see form. We can equate “form” with technique, of course - not with a form like Siu Lien Tau. Does it have to be executed according to strict criteria or is there a range, a continuum, within which form can be considered as “correct”? (The answer is “no”). Does any form suffice? (The answer is “no”). Does the form have to be performed exactly the same way every time it’s performed? The answer is, “essentially, yes”. Our Wing Chun teaching is that any form has to be performed according to strict criteria that are derived from the form being optimal to serve the function.
Interviewer: There’s a lot to think of, eh, sifu?
Sifu: There is.
Interviewer: Perhaps it isn’t so much as one of these, that is form, against the other, that is, function?
Sifu: Correct. They really can’t be dichotomous. I certainly think so. How can you have a form without function? (Laughs) Go look at a lot of traditional forms in any one of several arts! Yes! A non-functional form is possible! But, in our art, there is not one form that doesn’t have a practical function - usually they are multi-functional - as I often say. Does our Wing Chun have any non-functional forms? Not one!
Interviewer: I see. So, can we have a function without a form? I guess that might sound silly?
Sifu: Not really. We can have a form that is not classical but which derives from the principles under the pressure of a situation where time and circumstances preclude the classical form, the visible structure you normally see, being used. Biu Jee actually addresses this “breaking of the rules”. However, I think that we must think of form and we must think of function. Any of our forms - and by “form” I mean technique - serves a function, or functions. Our functions require a form. The functions can’t really be formless per se. So we have to have both form and function. Lots of martial arts have forms with no function (in self defence terms). These are poses - showy stances and arm posturing. Or fanciful techniques that simply don’t, and can’t, work in the real world. Wushu is full of them! Sport martial arts, likewise. Any art that trains something one way but says that you have to change it in application has form but not function - so form is not following function. But there cannot be a function that hasn’t had a form, or forms devised to achieve it (them). We can, however, respond to the need for a function (evasion, deflection, trapping, striking, taking down, breaking a joint etc) with a form or forms we have already seen, been taught and can execute. This bears thinking about. Even more interesting is to think how you can apply the actual Buddhist saying: "form is emptiness; emptiness is form" to our art.
Interviewer: I think I’d like to think about this!
Sifu: Good. In your thinking you will hopefully find that body, mind and spirit meet.
Interviewer: We might leave that for another interview. I need to think about that too! And what to ask!
Sifu: (Laughs) OK, let’s do that.
Interviewer: Thanks for the interview, sifu. I’ll be thinking for quite awhile about this!