Unless I missed something, I don't think that anyone in this discourse
denies that video and current technologies are natural extensions of earlier
technologies, and are just the beginning of technologies artists will employ
in the future.
To say that a dance for the camera is dance is correct. To say that the
dance represented on the screen or the monitor is dance is casuistic. It
is, by then, something in the form of post-dance. I think the problem lies
somewhere between language lovers like me who strive for clarity on the
page, and intuitive thinkers for whom imagery on the screen has somehow
become imbued with meaning or reality.
I appreciate any thoughts that can take this further.
Merilyn