Re your asterisk comment - I am at an academic dance conference at the moment and must say that one of the questions is (always) what do we call what we are doing now since it's not longer 'modern dance'? 'Contemporary' doesn't help define what we are doing and it has certain connections with competition style dance that is different than what we are trying to define.

I, personally, believe that 'modern' still best defines because it is in the tradition of breaking from the tradition. I also believe that historians will label the movement when the movement has moved forward and there is a label to be had.

I still don't know why we need a label.

ugh, I'm a dancer and I hate the term "contemporary" dance. It's pretentious (which I know will sound funny to people who think all modern dance is pretentious, but whatever) and makes me think of the dance competition circuit...technically wondrous but seriously lacking in artistic impact.

but Markeith Wiliey is fab, so thanks for plugging this show!

"Then what's the difference between hiphop and contemporary? Contemporary, by definition, is anything that didn't happen yesterday."

You answered your own question.

Why not refer to it as hip hop dance theater like the artist does? Dance theater has its own tradition as does hip hop. Why the defensive anger Brendan?

I think this is an important discussion to have. Yes it is semantics... but semantics is meaning, and meaning, I think, is pretty important. Hip-hop for instance, is a whole lifestyle, it is a way of creating art, music, and movement that grew out of latin-american and african-american communities in the 70s and 80s. But now 5 year old girls go to suburban dance studios and learn movements appropriated from music videos all under that name of hip-hop. Doesn't it do a disservice to actual hip-hop artists to confound the label hi-hop with two such different practices? We are also in a quandary with the term contemporary as you notice. In America it has taken on a connotation associated with competition dance, but in Europe, where the term modern dance was never adopted, contemporary is a term widely used to refer to current movement investigation practices. Is it fair to label European choreographers like Forsythe, Bausch, or Preljocaj with an American label? It seems a disservice to their work. In the Unites States, the term modern has persisted, despite the fact that, as your unnamed source mentions, the Modern period in art ended in the 1950s. I believe this is largely an artifact of the University system whose dance departments dichotomize dance into either ballet or modern. To say that Martha Graham and Christian Rizzo are both doing modern dance is profoundly limiting and does a disservice to them both. Yes, we are all familiar with the dichotomy between ballet and modern but how are we progressing the perception of an art form by saying that anything that is concert dance but not ballet can be lumped into one category called modern. From Isadora Duncan to Shen Wei, if it's not ballet it's modern? The general public is already skeptical of modern dance. They are afraid the won't 'get it'. Maybe if we were more willing to categorize artistic practices with greater clarity, people could discern what they were actually interested in and we could increase audienceship. Maybe I wound't go see Jose Limon, but I would go see Ralph Lemon... but by listing them both as Modern Dance, I might never try.

I think this is an important discussion to have. Yes it is semantics... but semantics is meaning, and meaning, I think, is pretty important. Hip-hop for instance, is a whole lifestyle, it is a way of creating art, music, and movement that grew out of latin-american and african-american communities in the 70s and 80s. But now 5 year old girls go to suburban dance studios and learn movements appropriated from music videos all under that name of hip-hop. Doesn't it do a disservice to actual hip-hop artists to confound the label hip-hop with two such different practices? We are also in a quandary with the term contemporary as you notice. In America it has taken on a connotation associated with competition dance, but in Europe, where the term modern dance was never adopted, contemporary is a term widely used to refer to current movement investigation practices. Is it fair to label European choreographers like Forsythe, Bausch, or Preljocaj with an American label? It seems a disservice to their work. In the Unites States, the term modern has persisted, despite the fact that, as your unnamed source mentions, the Modern period in art ended in the 1950s. I believe this is largely an artifact of the University system whose dance departments dichotomize dance into either ballet or modern. To say that Martha Graham and Christian Rizzo are both doing modern dance is profoundly limiting. Yes, we are all familiar with the dichotomy between ballet and modern, but that doesn't mean it is not problematic, how are we progressing the perception of an art form by saying that anything that is concert dance but not ballet can be lumped into one category called modern. From Isadora Duncan to Shen Wei, if it's not ballet it's modern? The general public is already skeptical of modern dance. They are afraid the won't 'get it'. Maybe if we were more willing to categorize artistic practices with greater clarity, people could discern what they were actually interested in and we could increase audienceship. Maybe I wound't go see Jose Limon, but I would go see Ralph Lemon... but by listing them both as Modern Dance, I might never try.