Referring to the bitchy and ever so arrogant Mia Michaels from SYTYCD show. Each season she just gets snarkier, bitchier, and more personal in her so-called “critiques” of the dancers.
For those who are fans, her ridiculous complaint of Kherrington’s smile and her comments (paraphrased) that one of the Courtneys’ dances was too pretty and not ugly or organic enough.
It seems to be her favorite word (organic that is) to use when criticizing someone’s dance. She consistently (and one-dimensionally) insists that it needs to be ugly, dirty, raw and organic in order to be “pure and real”. Drives me bonkers it does, there is no rule in dance that requires ugly before it is an authentic art form.
So, professional contemporary dancers, what the hell does it mean to dance “organically”? I’ve been dancing (not professionally and ZERO contemporary, but I do teach) for a long time, I don’t remember ever hearing this before our darling Ms. Michaels started batting it about during each of her stints at the judging table.
Excuse me for not addressing dance as such, but the idea that ugliness means authenticity is widespread through all art and society - so much so that very few people seek to question it despite how obviously facile it is. This is a cynical age, and it suits many of us just fine.
Urbanophiles, too, use “authentic” in their defense of battered Rust Belt cities. Some believe that practically every aspect of the built environment, culture and population of such places as Detroit, Cleveland and Pittsburgh are more “authentic” and “real” than such “fake”, “plastic”, and “artificial” cities such as Charlotte, Phoenix and Denver.
IANADancer, so I don’t know how “organically” is supposed to be used.
From watching the episode of SYTYCD in question, I think her critique of that dancer was that she was too “cheerleader-ish” - her moves were a bit too precise and sharp. Mia preferred it to be more “organic” (flowly, graceful, non-linear).
From my limited experience, I can speculate that it means diverging from the prescribed movements to a degree. Like playing jazz, you move off the beat slightly. Instead of a perfect, textbook leg lift, it’s something that comes from within (I lifted my leg because I felt like lifting my leg, not because I was supposed to) and doesn’t hit the textbook mark exactly.
On the other hand, if you were to do that all the time, the other judges would call you out on bad technique.
This answer is based on a couple of semesters of modern dance in college and a semester of dance composition. I am by no means a professional dancer!
I think **Waenara ** is on the right track. A lot of dance styles are about precise execution of choreography that is very much about “coloring inside the lines.” There is a precise way to execute the dance and deviations from it are just mistakes. Some contemporary dance relies more on the dancer to interpret what the dance is about and how the meaning relates to his or her movement. In a way it’s similar to acting, really getting into the part.
This relates to the way that modern/contemporary dance often takes on darker or more complex themes (not necessarily on SYTYCD) and other styles are more about endless variations on standard courtship themes (IMHO).
I do think Mia may have really high standards for how “organic” dancers can be in a routine they’ve only had a week to learn, especially if the dancers’ main style isn’t contemporary. Someone who’s really going on tour to do a piece about a complex theme has a lot more than a week to get their organic on.
