It's pleasant to see people reconciled.
Big Mick's comments started me thinking.
"I think what betrays you is your training. I would not close my eyes if I were lecturing. But if the lecture included a song, I might very well close my eyes to sink into the song. This is not an oral presentation, it is a dramatic performance. We are not delivering a speech, we are singing a song."

Training, or experience, or culture seem to be at the bottom of various contributors' responses. I've been teaching for almost as long as I've been singing; both started in very informal ways, among peers and without particular rules applied by greatly senior people. Teaching and singing were both done in a variety of contexts and for a variety of purposes and so used a variety of techniques. Lecturing is only one way of teaching and is really effective only in a very limited context, usually a very formal setting, although short bursts will be used in almost any type of teaching. Similarly, singing in a very 'in your face' manner has some valid but very limited purposes, while singing as though one were abstracted from the immediate audience also has its uses. A concert hall with 2000 in the audience is a very different context than the back bar of the Cudgewa. In any context, if the technique works for the audience (rather than just the singer) that may be all that matters.

In both singing and teaching I've found that I seem to be more effective if the event actively engages both the audience and me. Perhaps it is a lack of technique that requires me to keep my eyes open to achieve this but 'horses for courses'.

Cheers, Rowan