Fencing Laurel?

I was asked about how fencing fits as a "Laurel-able" skill set by a good lady in the West with far more awards than I will ever have. This is one of those wonderfully annoying questions that really makes you think. My first thought was that it doesn't really matter how I think fencing fits into the purview of the Order of the Laurel, what matters is how Laurel's think it does. But it didn't take much consideration to realize that if I can't explain how fencing fits into the Arts and Sciences, then I can't expect a Laurel to take it that way.

She pointed out that the Laurel is for the arts, which are creative, while fencing is martial and therefore destructive. My counter to this is that the making of siege weapons and swords are also martial in nature and yet they fall under the purview of the Laurel.

She was nice enough to offer me the out of comparing fencing to dance, which is valid. Both fencing and dance are, at their essence, the combination of movements to create something. Although she did question whether fencing can make the leap from something that is simply done properly to something that contains the beauty which is expected from art. That last part is actually misleading. After all, as the old saying goes, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Personally, I don't find Byzantine mosaics particularly attractive, but I can see the skill and the craftsmanship necessary to create such works of art. Likewise, a well done pass is the style of Thibault may not appeal to everyone, the correctness of the movements will be obvious. I think anyone who has ever watched a pass between two experienced fencers can attest to the dance-like quality that such a fight can take.

But, like dance, that's assuming that the fencer in question uses period techniques. Which is where my own style hits a snag or two. I don't fight in the style of Thibault, or DiGrassi or Agrippa or any single master. But I have studied Thibault, DiGrassi, Agrippa, Talhoffer, and Silver among others whose names either escape me or were never known. And I have mixed and matched from them to come up with what works for me. In period, this was called the Vulgar style, but it does lead to the problem that it makes it more difficult for those watching to say yes, that's period.

I think the biggest argument for the validity of a Laurel in fencing is that it was considered an art form in period times. The Hanko Döbringer fechtbuch from 1389 begins, "Here begins Master Liechtenauer’s art of fencing with the sword, on foot and on horseback, in armour and without." Likewise, there is Fillipo Vadi's Book on the Art of Fighting With Swords from 1487 and of course DiGrassi's True Arte of Defense.

So while it is easy to argue for fencing to fall under the purview of the Laurel, it still leaves the question of whether I have what it takes to become a Laurel on this road.