This point of view would depend entirely upon what one believes is the “original Chinese Martial Art”. If you were to follow the Bodidharma story, then yes, you would probably be right. But the Bodidharma story is very shaky at best. It is well known and well worn. If I may refernce an article by Chris Toepker (which may be found at http://www.hungkuen.net/article-damo.htm);

“This story has been under scrutiny in China for a very long time, but gone largely unquestioned in the west. For example, Tang Fan Sheng’s 1930 book “A reference on Shaolin and Wudang,” reports that this fable can be traced back to a single source: the preface by Li Jing to the “Marrow Washing Classic.” Li Jing states in this preface that he is writing in during the Tang dynasty. Mr. Tang notes that the Shaolin monastery indeed held a great attraction for literati who wrote many poems and essays featuring the monastery during this time. Shaolin enjoyed such fame not only because it held royal favor, but also because it was also the fountainhead of Chan (Zen). However, Mr. Tang’s research finds many contradictions and anachronisms.

Perhaps the most glaring contradiction Mr. Tang considers is the difference between Damo’s actual teachings and those recorded in the Classics. While Damo preached and practiced a method of direct transmission of enlightenment, the heart and soul of Chan teaching, the Classics are full of chants and “contortions.” Therefore, according to Mr. Tang, the contents are anathema to Damo’s aim and it is hard to believe that anyone living near the time of Damo would have dared to pass on such an obvious disparity. Still, there are even more concrete examples that point directly to the piece’s fraudulence. Among these obvious mistakes is Li Jings report that Damo arrived in the Wei kingdom during Xiao Ming’s “Tai He” year. However, this would place Damo’s arrival more than 30 years before the establishment of Shaolin at all. Someone writing at the time probably wouldn’t make such a mistake. Secondly, much of the text seem to be copied directly from the “Transmission of Light,” a largely allegorical book describing Chan enlightenment which was not written until the Ming dynasty.”

This article inspired me to do my own research, and I have come to be quite convinced. I am currently working on an article to be published here on the very subject of Bodidharma.

There is also much evidence to suggest that China had her own martial arts long before the arrival of Bodidharma as well.

However, the point that “not all applications are martial” is well taken. I need only look to the opening section of the first set that I teach to see this. Some of the Hei Gong sections of the Hung Gar sets have little to nothing in the way of actual combat use.

When you are in the middle of a fight, there are a ton of things going on all at once, and unlike what happens in many training halls, your opponent is not only resisting your offense, he is actually trying to hurt you back. If your Bunkai is going to go through a series of techniques on your way to the coup de grace, I feel that you are losing valuable time in ending the conflict.

Would it not be much better to end it quickly?

You are correct in asserting that martial art is still art. And, as such, it is going to have those elements which are more artistic than applicable. But why should there be any practice of those elements which are artistic and not applicable in the study of Bunkai, which is supposed to be application? Regarding the Sistine Chapel…as a painted ceiling, yes it would be a waste of time. As art, by no means could it be classified as a waste of time. It is all in what you are looking for.

I am not attacking your position, just trying to open the conversation and state my position more clearly.

Martial art should have some practical use, but it is still art after all. Was the Sistine Chapel a waste of time?