The expression “martial art” and “martial artist” are common parts of the English language. Though far less commonly used, the term “martial science” has also appeared recently in martial literature. I still have yet to hear the term “martial scientist”, however. One could then ask what notions are the different usages of “art” and “science” based on, and, what do the different terms imply?
Obviously, those who employ the less common term “martial science” do so to make a point. The point is probably either that scientific methods can be applied to martial techniques or that what others call “art” they maintain is “science”. I believe the latter notion implies that Wing Chun is not as open to interpretation but has to focus more on being replicable.
“Art” is defined as: “the production or expression of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance; skilled performance; a branch of learning; skilled workmanship, execution, or agency; a skill or knack; a method of doing a thing, especially, if it is difficult; studied action”.
“Science” is defined as: “systematic study based on the deductions and inferences which can be made, and the general laws which can be formulated, from reproducible observations and measurements of events and parameters; systematised knowledge in general; particular branch of knowledge”.
The amusing thing is that whilst we can distinguish the two there is overlap in some dictionary definitions with each being able to be described in terms of the other! However, in the world beyond hair-splitting semantics, there is a general pragmatic understanding that the two are distinct enough to be recognisably different to the layperson.
I’ve personally completed courses in the philosophy of science and have been trained in the scientific method. Likewise I’ve completed courses in arts and have been trained in some arts. So, it is interesting to apply the concepts I have learnt, my experiences and my insights, in terms of distinguishing the two terms and analysing them as applied to Wing Chun.
So, to my mind, the answer to the question as to whether Wing Chun is an art or a science is this: it is legitimately both. This is not simply a “fence sitting” answer. The emphasis during the learning phase of Wing Chun is on it being a science. The student must obey the sifu and do exactly as he says. Paradoxically, at the same time he must question the sifu. Not disrespectfully, of course, but in order to ascertain the exact “how” and the “why” underpinning the “how”. Good sifus will usually try to teach both the “why” and the “how” but there will possibly be points which are not fully understood and questions that need to be asked. The good sifu will patiently accept all questions, considering none too “silly”, “basic” or “obvious” and offer a detailed explanation to guide the student eager enough to learn to have asked the question.
At this level, scientific analyses of the “why” and “how” are extremely pertinent. The experimental method of science applies. The student takes the questions posed by self defence scenarios and their responses and field tests the previous answers the system and sifu have discovered in the comprehensive system of combat responses which comprise Wing Chun. Thus the scientific experimental method of failing to disprove a finding will apply. (The scientific tradition of logical positivism asserts that we logically don’t disprove something definitively for all time - as someone else may potentially later contradict our finding - it is tradition to say that we simply “fail to disprove”). If the student encounters failure of their application of the system then they must analyse which component factors have contributed to that result.
Responses previously proven need to be tested under varying circumstances. This is nothing other than science: pose a question; analyse the contributory and causal variables; control factors as you vary others to determine causality and ascertain the extent of it being replicable; test the situation and compare the results with previous findings. The scientific method and the scientific nature of the Wing Chun system underpin its success. The replicability of skill in responding to combat circumstances is a feature which distinguishes Wing Chun to a marked degree from most other self defence systems. By no means is that true of all, but certainly it is true of the majority.
As the student matures in the art they will begin to develop their own preferences and individual abilities. Their personal Wing Chun style begins to emerge within the parameters of the system. It is at this stage that “art”, per se, begins to emerge. Art, to my mind, as individual expression, is rooted in the notion of “springtime” in the Chinese name “Wing Chun”. “Wing Chun” is not so much, as has been conjectured by some, a name devised to hide the name of the true founder, nor to commemorate where it was designed, nor is it a contraction of a Chinese proverb. All these suppositions detract from the essential essence in the meaning of the term. And, that is this: Each blossom, each baby creature birthed in spring resembles that which has gone before such that it can clearly be seen to be “the same thing” - yet it has its uniqueness and individuality too - “different”. Indeed, each springtime in total, itself, is “the same, yet different”. No two can ever be identical in every detail - it would be logically and statistically impossible! Far too many variables involved!
As the student becomes a master in their own right the art aspect takes on even more importance. Their own individual Wing Chun is evident. It is decidedly not that Wing Chun is simply a set of concepts which can be expressed in any hodge-podge of techniques such that its physical expression resembles more kick boxing or all-out “anything-goes” brawling, with Wing Chun terms describing the travesties of correct Wing Chun structures such as we sadly sometimes see. It is that the art has a personal stamp upon it within the clearly defined parameters of what is and decidedly is not correct Wing Chun technique. (“Correct” and “incorrect” can be scientifically delineated as either in accordance with or not in accordance with core principles, so this is not purely a “matter of opinion”).
It is also decidedly not the case that each “graduate” of a system “does their own thing” to the point that if one were to line up all the graduates and have them perform one would see outstanding variety in structure; sequences; expressions of power; understandings; comprehensiveness; emphases etc such that no two are identifiably of the “same species”. There is variety within a species and there is difference between species - they are not the same and to confuse them shows a lack of a deep enough analysis. Whilst both are animals and mammals, a rat is not a dog. Certainly a push bike and a Porsche are both methods of transport - yes, they have that in common. They also both have wheels and a steering mechanism and gears and are made of metal, rubber etc. “All transport is the same” we could say. Well, yes ..... but..... no! There can be a red Porsche and a black Porsche and various makes of Porsche but all are recognisably Porsche. The essential point that variety and difference can be distinguished is observable and logical!
Also, at this level, the expression of the techniques and the flow take on a personal stamp which is distinctive. Wing Chun is simultaneously a technical and a conceptual art. To see it as purely one or the other is to be too simplistic and serves to generate confusion. How can a bird fly with but one wing? Certainly the science of Wing Chun is still present but the art has become more balanced with it at this stage. The practitioner is performing a scientific art. Thus, my view is that Wing Chun is both an art and a science.