The reality that representation imitates
is itself a representation
so that is why
mimetic narratives are dead ends
because they are images of images.

a.  theatricality of theater.

b.  the painterliness of paint.

c.  the movement and time of dance.

d.  the audio impulse of music

Why is it that so many
seem to want to make virtual reality
a representational field. 
Why not explore it as what it is:
a field of play. 
Let’s make VR polymorphous. 
Discover what’s inherent in the medium itself
then let that work itself out.

a.  What is inherent in the medium:  potential of interactivity, kinesthetic, telepresence (being present at a distance:  in vr you are always at two places at once, you are present in real space and virtual space, re to telepathic, within its use the operator has the potential to assume a subjectivity other than the subjectivity she/he may perform in real experience.  With VR, gender, ethnicity, class, educational status is transitory and volatile.

b.  What would a virtual audience be.  A reconfigured configuration of spectator.  If the spectator is within the art object, interactively, what has this to do with Aristotle and the implied separation of spectator and protagonist with whom the spectator identifies but only up to a point, maintaining the integrity of the separation of the fictive world and the area in which the spectator sits, watching and listening.

If the operator is partaking in narrative formation,
what she/he is doing
is calling up existing narrative formations,
this is what people do. 
What would be interesting
is the analysis of those narrative choices
the ways in which those narrative choices
construct the subjectivity of the operator/spectator.
Isn’t all aesthetic formulations and reconfiguartions
an attempt to establish an image of the subject for the subject?

The goal of the avnat-garde has been to reject the above notion and employ an art for it’s own sake.
Art for Art.