Great, but what about the intellectual property issues; at least a credit for the dancers, the composer and the choreographer in the video? Maybe we could have some info on the company that might take you to that info if not a page of credits at the end of the dance??? I shouldn't be surprised that dancers, choreographers, musicians and composers get the short shrift here. Nameless, faceless they are despite how riveted we are by their performances.

I was annoyed to not see even a mention of the composers. The scores are Thomas Oboe Lee's ''Morango . . . Almost a Tango,'' George Crumb's ''God Music,'' Arvo Pärt's ''Fratres'' and Jack Body's ''Long-Ge.''The choreography is by Michael Tracy.

Video is the conduit. The real art is in the work captured. But then Pilobolus has been selling their work without credit for the corporate world prior to this latest venture. Dancers and dance audiences recognize them in commercials, too. They and continue to sell themselves in this way. Buy Pilobolus here.

If they make a snippet for a commercial, then it is a commission, but this is a full length work, not a BMW commercial. Or is it just a commercial? Once again, art ends up at the bottom of the heap, continuing its Sisyphean task of driving innovation.

With the money attached, we would hope to see some linkage back to the company or the people behind the work. It is understandable for low budget productions to toss out some clips of work with little production credit, but when the buck are there, I have to ask, does that mean there is not a "Symbiosis" of starlet and producer; that you make the work, sell it and then have no rights to the creative product? We have become accustomed to this way of using art. My husband often remarks about how music from our teen years appeared in commercials for big manufacturers decades ago; most notably Janis Joplin for Mercedes Benz. Ever since the Rolex print ads, Pilobolus has been in the advertising public eye. Everybody knows they are Pilobolus right?

Momix dancers were in the recent Hanes commercial. Dancers, always the poorest of the arts inflicted, run after these opportunities. Modern choreographers who sought recognition ran after ballet companies to perfom their work for wel-to-do patrons. (Now instead of being recognized as artists in the new American made art form of modern dance they call themselves Ballets.) But the bottom of the heap the guys whose work presses the dance world forward remain unknown and unsupported. No surprise there.

Now you will say, well these corporations are nurturing the arts by hiring them for these high profile opportunities. here's an interesting take on that from NYTimes critic Anna Kisselgoff.

Watch out Spencer Tunick...

here comes Sanex.

In art there are no patents. Is this the difference between art and science? Is it like the native people's response to owning land... "how high up do you own it?" We have divided and compartmentalized land ownership and now intellectual property rights. Will our emerging global view lead to the erradication of such ownership? Will our progeny be one mass of life that is the owner caretaker of all innovation and responsibility for the earth organism? Back to Symbiosis... who owns, whose responsible for the blade of grass, the rain, the sun, the soil??? or is it all one living dying cyclical entity??? These are big thoughts for a Sunday morning.