Is the Term "Live Martial Arts" an oxymoron?

You can walk into a dojo,
On any given Monday and see what Bruce Lee called "the classical mess".
The instructor calls a student out to demo a technique,
student gets into a stance...
lunges in with a classic karate/kung fu punch..
and freezes while the instructor demos strikes and control.

Now,

Don't get me wrong... before you talk about how Master Shum Li is probably swirling in his urn right now,
please remember that I trained in systems like this and I understand.

Initially it's important to demonstrate on a static target to teach effectively.
But what I believe Sun Tzu (Art of War) said, "the map is not the territory, the territory is the territory".

What's my point?

ok.

AT some point we need to graduate from the static demonstration to find the truth.
In no uncertain terms...

the truth about applying tools/ weapons when the opponent moves the way people move today.

Instead of spoon feeding generic technique, how about if we as trainers, wrapped the art around the nature of the student?

I know, "you can't do that in a class setting." Right? But can't you still cultivate unique qualities in each person?
How about training in a way that is "mindless"?
True Zen.
Minimal effort or thought required, yet maximum effect.
Like my mentor Professor Tanwir, founder of Fannul Harb Jujitsu says.

2 words my classical brothers and sisters: "Drills", and "Sparring".
By the way, here's a quick test to see if your on track:
Teach a technique to a class; practice to ample proficiency; then drill it; then spar it; What? your students can't do it?

Simplify it and start all over again.

"Now let's go to the videotape!" Here is a good example of
what I call "academonstration (who moves like this today?)" v.s. Live Fighting. Not the difference in practicality.

What's your opinion?