In this context, the debate on mimesis is current. In addition to being translated as simple imitation or representation, mimesis in art is related to symbolically expressing the metaphysical, the occult, everything that escapes the standards of rationality. Although some authors treat it as an instinctive reproduction of human reality, Augusto Boal proposes that the best translation for the term is not ‘imitation’, but ‘recreation’, a term he considers more adequate than the first, which would represent a simple copy of things. Classical art would then recreate a metaphysical experience through perfect forms, while modern art would recreate an everyday experience through free forms.

Modern art breaks with the limits of classical art, but maintains distinct artistic languages. Modern dance breaks with classical dance only, the same for other languages. Contemporary art, in turn, represents a break with all the limits of what is traditionally considered art. That is why it is common to treat contemporary art through terms such as ‘the end of art’, ‘the death of art’, or even ‘non-art’. In the classical form there is no doubt about the nature and beauty of art, the doubt being directed towards the artist’s capacity for such a noble task. In the modern form, no longer having the reference of perfection, the public’s doubt turns to the quality of the art now created. In the contemporary, the doubt resides in the nature of art, in other words, whether or not a work is art.

The absence of borders and supports allowed the emergence of hybrid languages ​​such as dance-theater and performance, but also allowed the inclusion of apparently antagonistic media. Technology by its nature is the result of skills and knowledge and has a utilitarian purpose, and therefore would be limited in the definition of techné, never mimesis. The contemporary liberation from the traditional restrictions typical of classical and modern arts created a crisis of dialogue between artists, institutions and the public, but also allowed the emergence of new unconventional languages ​​and media. The idea of ​​a technological art cannot be conceived if not in the context of contemporary art.

It is not intended to question the ability of mimesis, or symbolic meaning, of technology applied to art. This is seen as a natural consequence of the human capacity to give meaning to abstract entities, and can be achieved by a simple process of subversive experimentation typical of art. There is, however, a hierarchy or value problem between languages. How can such distinct languages ​​be incorporated into a work with organic significance? This issue is addressed by Renata Ferraz in her work. The path to a possible answer lies in what she calls co-affectations. In short, in this case dealing with the theatrical language on stage, the narrative must be constructed as a cycle of affections between the elements on stage, whatever their languages. In other words, there is no hierarchy between the languages, they alternate in scenic cause and effect roles.

A final barrier to the use of technology in the arts is perhaps ignorance about how it works. In its origins, it is a technique of mathematical foundation, not always intuitive, and its operation is almost inaccessible to most traditional artists.