Clubb Chimera Martial Arts : CCMA

I have to admit that Oliver Cromwell does not feature on my list of favourite historical figures. There is little denying his considerable contribution towards democracy in the western world and perhaps the world over, and his energy towards his cause has to be admired even if you don’t agree with his methods or aim. Nevertheless, growing up in the colourful world of circus and entertainment and developing an early interest in the strange and exotic did not immediately attract me to a movement that on the surface seems sterile and characterless. I still do not see myself as a puritan in any of its forms, and certainly not its religious one, but as time has gone on I realize now how moving towards the basic concepts of a “puritanical” philosophy is a strong way to develop individual ideas. However, what should be avoided is getting lost in the trappings of dogma, a temptation many have found to be irresistible.

Puritanism as defined by most dictionaries and encyclopaedias was the sixteenth century English religious movement that sought to further reform the Protestant Church of England, so that it would be stripped of what followers saw as the old trappings of the Catholic Church. The main thrust of the movement was to get rid of the old hierarchy and all the pomp associated with it, which Puritans saw as the corruption of their faith. This serves as a good analogy with various other movements throughout history and into the modern day. Therefore when I use the term puritan or puritanical I don’t just think of the term in a direct religious or moral sense, but as a method different groups have applied in order get back to the basics of their particular philosophy or art.

I am not alone in this analogy as the 2000 collection of short stories, “All Hail the New Puritans” demonstrated. Puritanism is an inherent urge in many of us to want to return to basics to clear away surplus elements and, by applying discipline, to create something new. Part of its attraction is the apparent honesty in its approach and also the clarity it provides. It is not difficult to see a form of Puritanism in so many movements.

The ancient Chinese discipline of space clearing, known as Feng Shui is an example of something that is fundamentally about clearing away clutter in order for supposed “good energy” to circulate. On a more artistic level the Modernist movement emerged in the western world between 1884 and 1914. The architecture of this movement was celebrated in Ayn Rand’s famous novel “The Fountainhead”, which introduced the world to Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism. From Modernism emerged another movement, which perhaps best describes the visual expression of all these movements and concepts: the Minimalist movement. This began to emerge after World War II and peaked in the ’60s and ’70s. Today we often see Minimalism being applied in interior design and decorating as a type of non-spiritual version of Feng Shui. It has also found its way into various forms of music, most recently in the simple 4/4 beats of Minimal Techno. In 1995 a new independent cinematic movement began known as Dogme 1995 (Dogma 1995). As with the Modernist movement, the thought behind Dogme directors and writers was to create a stripped down version of their art with strict guidelines designed to eschew various gimmicks and techniques in order to focus more on the film’s storyline and the actors performances. Inspired by Dogme 95, came the aforementioned New Puritans, a group of writers who wrote short stories according to a strict manifesto designed to promote the straightforward and linear narrative form without any so-called grammatical or storytelling gimmickry.

A desire to return to base principles is a natural urge and it inevitably happens within the microcosm and macrocosm of life. It is a healthy organic process to want to return back to the original idea. I see it all the time in the world of martial arts. In fact, as long as I have trained under or read the writings of various self-defence instructors they have preached about the values of keeping everything simple. After all, we know that it is highly improbable that complex techniques or combinations will work under the pressure of a real life situation. Furthermore a desire to return to a more principle-based system is prompted by the sheer fact that it would be impossible to devise memorable and efficient methods specific for every possible situation or scenario an individual may face. Martial arts are also very susceptible to influences from religion, philosophy and culture, which often detract away from the art’s original purpose. Ceremony, tradition, hierarchy and sometimes even sport have often taken the martial artist’s attentions away from practical application. This has gone so far that there are even those who believe that martial arts were not originally created for combat in the first place. In fact, there are many who will look down their noses at you when you discuss such lowly matters as self-defence.

A reaction to this in the martial arts world can be compared to art’s realist movement, although many self-defence instructors would prefer the analogy to be with science against religion. Nevertheless, despite the use of scientific language and the large number of academics who have been involved with the martial arts, there has yet to be one hand-to-hand combat system to be officially recognised as “martial science”. The realists were an artistic movement to return art back to creating realistic depictions of subjects. Likewise realistic or reality-based self-defence or martial arts are supposedly systems taught for the realities of violence.

At religious Puritanism’s core there was an ideal to return back to the basic idea of Christian worship and to promote a type of humbleness that Jesus and his followers had exhibited in the original scriptures. Christianity itself may have been an offshoot of Judaism, but the Romans who eventually adopted it had left a religion that was crumbling under its confusion of cavorting and petty gods and endlessly deified emperors. They were not the first nor would they be the last religion to do this. The Buddha’s journey was also one about returning back to basics, as he left Hinduism and its various sects.

The religious Puritan Movement saw corruption in the Christian religion. It saw it in the excessive hierarchy and in all the ceremony that surrounded the Catholic Church, so it strove to remove all the remnants of this religion from the Church of England. The peak of its success was in its winning of the English Civil War with the Puritan leader Oliver Cromwell being made dictator. A new system of government would be installed that would shape the future of democracy, but for the meantime the Puritan law would be enforced. This would see the banning of virtually all forms of entertainment, dancing and even Christmas, despite its Christian connection. Meanwhile the government would not survive. There would remain internal factional disputes between different types of Puritan. Like Rand’s Objectivism, it was a cult of personality and once Cromwell died it would fall apart only to be replaced by the return of the monarchy with Charles II echoing in an age of decadence that was virtually the antithesis of Protestant Puritanism.Nevertheless ideas set down by the Puritanical paradigm did not die. Puritans left England to colonise unopposed in the New World. Meanwhile the Victorian age would see the United Kingdom return to a type of extreme conservatism (at least on the surface) not seen since the Puritan age that would last into the twentieth century and establish the social stereotype of the British people. The Victorians would still be known for their extravagant tastes exhibited by the wealthy, but this ostentatious style would not last. After

Victoria’s reign the Edwardian era (1901-1910) kept the conservatism, but a decided trend towards scaling down the fashions had already begun and the Modernist movement was on its way. 

The Dogme 95 film-making movement was quite clear about its own dogmatic attitude from the very beginning, as can be seen in the title chosen. It created a clear-cut and Spartan manifesto that reflected reality and not expressionism. This is in line with the objectives of the Realist movement. However, the very failure of most Dogme directors to strictly conform to the so-called “Vow of Chastity” manifesto (the rules that govern making a Dogme film) exposes a vital flaw in Puritanism in general. Whereas the art of restriction can clearly develop artists of all forms and focus them on a project, too much restriction can actually stem creativity. Furthermore, some times when we strip back too much we actually fall into the trap of forgetting the original idea or objective. We get caught up in all the abstinence and in line with our inquisitive and creative human nature we re-interpret the rules. Sometimes - and this all too often seen in religion - we warp the rules and cherry pick the rules to conform to our own feelings of insecurity or desires for power.

Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism has some very sensible underpinning principles and is the closest mankind has come into turning individualism into a type of religion. Her book “The Fountainhead” is one of my favourite novels and a great source of inspiration. Michael Shermer was an Objectivist and has a lot time for the ideas put forward by Ayn Rand. However, true to his sceptical nature, he wrote about the flaws he found in it in his book “Why People Believe Weird Things”. The trouble with Objectivism, Shermer points out, is that apart from the cult of personality quality it took on not long after the philosophical movement got off the ground, it deals in absolutes. This impedes progress and humans are naturally evolutionary in their thinking, so it goes against our inner urge for survival.

The base principles of Feng Shui are fairly commonsensical. First of all it deals with getting rid of physical and emotional clutter. This sounds like a good rule. We dispense with what we do not need or are not going to use. This then translates into our relationships with people. There is no point in allowing negative people who sap your time and energies to occupy your free time or influence your outlook in life. Then there are rules about not having your chair backed to a door. Many a nightclub doorman or self-defence instructor will back that one up.

Okay, so far so much spring cleaning, good time management skills and sound self-protection advice. Now we come to the stuff about certain colours and images being unhealthy in your household or the direction they are pointed. There is no scientific evidence to back this part up. Having said that I don’t like the idea of oppressive colours in my home and I recently took all my true crime books out of my bedroom too many of them feature photos of notorious killers grinning at you from the book spine. This is just an aesthetic preference. Feng Shui is not an exact science and a great deal of it smacks of superstition. However, as I have pointed out, the general principles as seen in minimalist interior design are very sensible.

And yet Minimalism and Modernism are not to everyone’s liking or necessarily proof of a higher or a truer art. As I said at the beginning of this article I was never completely drawn to the aesthetics of Minimalism just as I wasn’t attracted to the ideas behind religious Puritanism. Minimalism can present us with a fresh outlook. At its base we have a clear approach to keeping everything simple and to keep everything down to a bare minimum. We know that organization and simplicity are at the core of any efficient mechanism from a well constructed engine to a successful business. And yet humans are individuals by nature. Our so-called herd instinct can often be attributed to lazy or unconfident thinking, which can be overcome by our ability to choose, an ability that has intrigued philosophers and spiritual leaders probably since civilisation began. One thing is for sure, as much as we naturally seek patterns, humans are forever producing exceptions to the rule and history shows us that single individuals are responsible for initiating some of our greatest changes.

Ayn Rand argued that there was a strong connection between Minimalism (in the form of Modernism) and the individuality - in fact she saw this particular movement as the natural artistic expression of the individualist. Nevertheless Minimalism’s greatest criticism has been in its sterile look. How can one compare see the physical embodiment of the chaotic thought processes of a truly voracious creative thinker with his numerous references, abstract influences and dozens of new ideas in the form of featureless walls and sparse furnishings. Perhaps it reflects the discipline we aspire to that will focus our ideas and keep us working at what every project we need to complete, but then one has to ask why was this type of interior decoration was the one favoured by the yuppies of the 1980s? I can say that I have yet to enter the household of someone who I value as a creative thinker or as a serious artist whose interior followed completely down the dogmatic lines of Minimalism. 

Rand liked the confidence of the Modernist innovators their sheer audacity to challenge the neo-classical movements that inferred you could not better the movements of the past. Rather than evolving from any other movement, Modernists aimed to break completely with the old school and to use their innovation to create a truly contemporary product. Unlike the other Puritan movements, Modernism has little strict dogma to stick to other than to be original. This is a tough enough rule to follow and in principle it sounds very admirable, but there is a decisive downside. Modernisms lack of conformity makes the whole process very subjective, and without any set structure or obvious contrast it is the most vulnerable to charlatans and the delusional. There are plenty of comedic sketches based on the pretensions and the ignorant pomposity that all too often surrounds bad pieces of Modernist art. The Tony Hancock film, “The Rebel”, is a perfect example of this type of satire.