In einer eMail vom 10/25/2005 1:24:34 AM W. Europe Daylight Time schreibt
hilinda@lightlink.com:
And I'd argue that much of what is being done today that is called
"classical" is in fact not. I believe- and this is my personal opinion-
that classical fencing requires classical TEACHING and that is something
most people do not have access to. I am sad that it is so, but it is.
There are undoubtedly many people out there with the best intentions, and
great interest in fencing classically, who simply do not have classical
teachers available.
I'm glad to read this. It displays two things that are strongly
characteristic of the classical scene today (I could add two more but these are
uppermost in my mind). You are right about the desire, on both sides of the
Atlantic. Since the KFS website (_http://www.soestfechten.de_
(
http://www.soestfechten.de) ) went up, I have received inquiries, all of which are pretty much the
same: They express frustration at not being able to find any classical or
traditional groups, their local Turnverein is devoted to "chaotic," as the
last one put it, sport clubs focussed on finding child competitors, und so
weiter.
The first of my two observations is that there's little actual awareness of
what in reality goes on within groups in the US, Britain, and on the
Continent: Avoiding detail for now, I'd say there is a sometimes contradictory and
unclear mixture of motivations, impressions, and "teaching methods" out
there.and it's long overdue standards became a serious goal. By "standards" I do
not mean a rigid structure of required curricular stages. For example, I'm
very sure that Linda's teacher has a rationale for beginning with pronated
actions; I do not do so, but have my reasons. On the other hand, I would bet we
have convergent objectives and parallel benchmarks of achievement.
The second is something Walter Green has pointed out, and it's related:
Right now the replacement level of teachers is not even sufficient to succeed
the current generation, and we have nothing in place to guarantee the quality
of those we have. KFS is now and much earlier than I anticipated working on a
planned development of assistants with a view to creating a self-sustaining
school.
I can't help adding the obvious, that the lack of standards creates
considerable uncertainty--not always acknowledged--as to what constitutes "classical
fencing," and I've called for serious discussion of this question, to no
avail. The issue affects teaching, rules of engagement, and the scholarly
grounding of what people do and with what weapons--colored by what in my opinion is
a poorly informed impulse to achieve historical "authenticity." This
uncertainty is, I think, reflected in a tendency on the part of some to react to
questions or different points of view as if they were personal affronts and a
stone cold silence from most.
In part, by the way, this is because classical fencing has been in large
part but not entirely a reactive movement--understandably so--against the sport
scene, and this is true even if we now have a succession of generations
occurring with no previous long involvement with the USFA/FIE: Here in Germany,
for instance, all my students are beginners, but they responded to the KFS
program because they were looking for something very different from what they
had seen on German TV (which covers fencing, as do the newspapers) and also for
reasons having to do with the society at large--"Hoeflichkeit," roughly
courtesy, was a big draw. Definitional questions and teaching rationales go
hand-in-hand, however. We offer ours in considerable detail--in both German and
English--click on "Unser Modell Trainingsprogramm" on our site. But we also
lay'em out not as if they were definitive--in fact, we call for discussion
even while making a case in strong form. We do NOT have all the answers; one
problem is that there are teachers out there who seem to think they do.
The second major component in the "classical" scene is its pretension to
"historical" grounding. Discussions along this line always can set off
pyrotechnics, but to be frank, this is also a reactive legacy with roots in late-19th
century ideas we might appropriately call "antimodernism." These ideas have
been transformed--politically and economically--since the mid-20th century
by some forces hotly debated--by fencers, I'm sorry to say not.
I should add that the potential constituency for classical fencing is quite
large because of that underlying, often contradictory set of social and
cultural pressures. (The divide between classical and sport fencers in fact
reflects that cultural controversy--hence the inordinate attention paid to
Renaissance manuals and whatnot--and could be settled on the classical side if
fencers paid more attention to it.)
I was overwhelmed by 25 enrollees in a class in beginning foil, and still
find the work hard even though we have split the students into two sections.
The challenges are pretty big and awkward to contend with. We do use
photography as a diagnostic and evaluative tool. But since I have found it extremely
difficult to provide total beginners with both group lessons and drills and
also give students the personal attention they deserve without having
assistants (there is a pool of talent in the group which if retention is even modest
I can rely on in the future), stills are so far all we work with. My
solutions seem to work well, but I am not satisfied with them. I've received
requests for instructional videos and we plan both an instructional page for the
website and video materials, and I'll be assembling our printed handouts into
a package as well.
This is down-the-road stuff for a very, very new program. But there is no
substitute for live action and real conversation. Tentatively--the thing's
only at the discussion stage--we would very much like to hold an international
workshop and tournament in the fall of 2006. It would be a preliminary to
the structural and educational objectives we have only just now begun to
define. The striking thing about Linda's post is that it reflects the isolation we
face despite the very real potential for developing a network that can help
all of us achieve goals we hold in common. But we first have to define those
goals beyond blowing smoke at each other.
Bill Leckie
Klassisches Fechten Soest
_flanconade@aol.com_ (mailto:flanconade@aol.com)
_soestfechten@aol.com_ (mailto:soestfechten@aol.com)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUI...LSAA/VRUolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The CFML is sponsored in part by Purpleheart Armoury, now carrying rapier blunts and leather gorgets.
http://www.woodenswords.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/classicalfencing/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
classicalfencing-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Linear Mode
