I love the show So you Think you can Dance. I was and am an ardent fan. I applaud the show's creators for introducing the 18-35 demographic to ballroom and other forms of dance in a more credible fashion than Dancing with the Stars.

However, since the show's blast to popularity, the already crumbling study of dance history has been even further eroded.

One of the most popular categories on the show was Contemporary. It was apparent that Contemporary was a substitute lable for Modern; a label that connoted gay males in shiny unitards, or people wailing about social injustice while covered in glitter. Whatever the stereotype, Modern was clearly weird. Too weird for a mainstream station like Fox. So the label Contemporary was coined, and Modern dance was covertly introduced to millions of viewers.

So what's the problem? After all, Modern dance is an often disputed term in itself, with boundaries in constant flux. It is often explained as "everything that isn't ballet and jazz." Even within this category - Are you a Modern dancer? Postmodern? A ballet dancer that does Modernist choreography?

The catchall medium.

But this is wrong. Modern dance is fully of creative entrepreneurs and imaginaries that still influence Modern dance technique.
One of the most famous names in Modern is Martha Graham. Known for deep abdominal contractions and darkly emotional works, almost all, if not all Modern dancers are influenced by her, whether by using her technique or by refusing to.

Google Jose Limon, Alvin Ailey, Merce Cunningham. These are just a few more names in the Modern dance spectrum.

Can I blame the show SYTYCD for causing the lack of knowledge of dance history, especially among young dancers? No, not entirely.

But ever since the show took off, there has been an highly unusual upsurge of interest in Modern dance at dance competitions and studios. At recent competitions, there have been three times as many Modern entries as in the past two years.

So what's the problem? The problem is that these dances did not show any signs of any Modern technique. Cunningham austerity of line and Balletic vocabulary? No. Graham contractions and extensions of the legs? No. Stylized arms of Ailey? No. Use of extensive floor rolls, handstands, and releases as in release work? No.

The real problem is that dance competitions are inherently segregated. The Jazz dances with ten billion turns and kicks to the ear are over here, while the histrionic flailing of Lyrical belongs over here. Anything that falls outside of these lines is penalized with not as high of a score. And no matter how many times we say otherwise, competitions are about winning.
So, now that Contemporary is acceptable as something just a smidge different than Jazz/Lyrical - maybe arms will be bent instead of straight, a foot will be flexed instead of pointed - the Modern dance category has become the catchall for these slightly quirky but not Modern dances.

How then are dance competitions actually encouraging creativity, teamwork, maturity? If they are all about the tricks, so much so that creativity is either penalized or shuffled into the Modern category as something deviant, what are we teaching this upcoming generation of dancers?

It doesn't help that most of the dancers on SYTYCD were all former competition kids themselves. I don't think the young dancer audience will realize how hard the show's choreographers worked to get competition habits out of all of the contestants. I am afraid that this generation has no idea why they do what they do.

Without history, what does an artform become?