Well, I guess there is a definition of contemporary dance. Not sure how reliable that definition is and not sure how good of a term “contemporary dance” is. Definitions that are related to time are tricky. What is after contemporary? Post contemporary? People should drop the time aspect and give dance a name that explains what it is. Contemporary doesn’t define anything but time – when it happens/happened. In the definition yoga is part of contemporary dance and yoga is 5000 years old. Yes, it is just one of the things drawn upon. Contemporary dance, maybe should be called “and the kitchen sink dance” because everything is fair game.
How many of those things does one need to incorporate to be a contemporary dancer? If I just use Horton, Hawkins, Cunningham and Humphrey does that make me contemporary? No! Cunningham is the most recent and he hasn’t been contemporary since the 60’s. Okay, they used Ipods. Making a man a priest makes him neither celibate nor honest.
Couldn’t someone use tap and be “contemporary”? Or how about square dancing? Is that not contemporary? I am sure people are creating new square dances all the time. And ballet? New balletic movement is created all the time. Not sure how long it takes before some moves join the canon of ballet.
This definition is another instance of people valuing the tool over the logic or aesthetic. Dance is so much more than techniques about the body. Dance is the art form that uses the body to address various logics (stories, topics). The more I think about the term “contemporary” the more I dislike it. I have contempt for contemporary. Vague, vague, vague.
“What kind of dance do you do?”
“Oh, I do ‘of the present time’ dancing.”
“Interesting”
Labels, labels, labels…we do need them.