I feel (and I fear this will not transcend past my own limited opinion) that the question needs to address concepts of 'skill' and/or 'artfulness'. Looking at that, I would say skill and artfulness arise out of practice, dedication and personal investment in the moment.Looking then at professional strippers, I would conclude that the first two are definitely given; particularly pole dancing requires immense physical strength and continuous practice. Whether or not you take your clothes off while you do it has nothing to do with the artful display of carefully honed skills. The last, personal investment in the moment, is somewhat more difficult to pinpoint, especially as the idea of seduction - even if it remains imaginary, stimulated by the striptease - depends on ambiguity (hence the italics) and perhaps makes it impossible to discern whether or not the performer is personally invested or detached.

Moving on now to dance, I would suggest it is deliberate, often rehearsed, movement that can be  - but does not have to be - entirely independent from text (spoken or otherwise), plot, scenography and sound. This renders a lot of things 'dance' that may not immediately be viewed as such, but it's the best definition I can come up with spontaneously.

Concluding I would then arrive at the statement that stripping is indeed both art and dance and Nite Moves have a case, especially as the legislation appears to specify 'performances', too. Surely no-one can debate the performative character of an exotic dance routine?

The crux of the matter lies in norms concerning morality, which are applied to the arts as well as to any other area of life. The tabooisation of our bodies - constantly we are told we are not what we should be (thinner, taller, fitter, more tanned, less hairy, etc.) - and the estrangement we experience as a result ('my body' has ceased to be felt as synonymous with 'I', it seems) manisfest themselves in a bizarre sense of righteousness that seemingly attacks the objectification of women whilst it simultaneously demonises the human (and especially the female) body without questioning the processes that lead to it becoming a commodity in the first place.

The problem isn't striptease and crime rates and tax evasion. Nor is it the ever-elusive definition of art. It is, to me, the separation of our selves from ourselves, the split between what we perceive as us and its physical manifestation, our bodies.

 I would be interested to question the purpose of the taxation. Does the taxation on entry fees derive from a concern for the dancers and thus acts as a government statement of disapproval? This would be similar to Iceland’s banning of strip clubs in 2010, as they were seen as a threat feminism and equality. Alternately, is the entry tax a tax on vice? Is it a monetary slap on the wrist for impure behavior? This would be similar to Mayor LaGuardia’s attempt to illuminate burlesque from New York in the 1930s explaining that “Decent people don’t like this sort of stuff and it is our job to see to it that they get none of it.” (Shteir, 2004)(156).

Why do we tax naked bodies? Why do vaginas get taxed and G-strings do not?

For more on this topic I would suggest looking at the work of Jessica Berson. 

I agree, the case definitely raises issues regarding 'self-hood' and the body. Questions that could potentially be asked of anyone performing, for any type of audience. How relevant is the nudity to the separation of ourselves from our bodies? It also seems important to consider the intention of the dancer. Can stripping only be described as art, if all the dancers are deliberately and consciously creating an instance of a "musical arts performance"?

It seems clear that stripping is a "choreographed performance", and that it requires rehearsal and skill, as you point out Lara. Further, it is clear that strippers dance. However, there are other activities that fulfil these criteria that we do not consider art, cheerleading, for example (see Graham McFee for more on this). There is a distinction between dance-as-an-activity and dance-as-art. It would perhaps be interesting to know how broad the tax exemption is, in terms of classifying art, in order to better assess the role of morality in the case.

It will be interesting to see what happens!