Integral Art

Alex Grey

Alex Grey, a renowned visionary and spiritual artist and author of The Mission of Art. In the foreword to The Mission of Art, Ken Wilber stated: "Alex Grey might be the most significant artist alive."

Alex and Ken begin the dialogue by talking about the current state of the art world, which to be frank, is pretty sad. As Alex recounts, the artists capturing the attention of the so-called intelligentsia and occupying the most popular galleries are those who, quite literally, cover themselves in chocolate syrup and then wriggle about nude on a canvas (and this is one of the more tame examples). There is absolutely nothing wrong with this kind of art, and it should have its rightful place. The problem comes when it dominates the scene to such an extent that no other forms of art are allowed their rightful place—which is precisely what has happened.

The power of an Integral Approach lies in its ability to help one "make sense of everything," and this is certainly true when looking at the often-confusing world of art and the interpretation of art. A merely postmodern, pluralistic view asserts that there is no way to prove that one piece of art has any more depth or value or significance than another, because in a postmodern view—and particularly in its pathological forms (mean-green-meme, boomeritis)—there is no depth to be found in the world at all, because all perspectives are held to be fundamentally equal (hence the term "flatland").

"I was always looking at the fact that transcendental art was working on one major dimension—getting you to something higher. But now there are two kinds of higher!"

As Ken explains, depth, height, and increasing orders of complexity and value are intrinsic to the Kosmos—you simply can't get rid of the fact that more complex occasions transcend-and-include less complex occasions (cells transcend-and-include molecules and atoms, but not vice versa, and so cells are of a higher order). The leading edge of thought regarding depth as a crucial element of existence can be found in Ken's Integral Spirituality, where one can see that there are two kinds of "higher": one can be found in states of consciousness and one can be found in stages (structures) of consciousness. This has profound implications for the understanding and interpretation of art. Two artists may be accessing the same state of visionary creativity and then interpreting that profound state from two radically different stages of development. To the untrained eye, based on the similarly "far out" nature of the art involved, it may look like they're "doing the same thing”—but they're not, not at all, and only an Integral Approach can explain why....

Here are a few of the key concepts explored in this talk:

States: States of consciousness are marked by their transient nature: they come, stay a bit, and they go. The three primary states of consciousness available to all humans are waking, dreaming, and deep sleep, and what the great contemplative traditions do is show how one can gain mastery in each of those states, and realize their ever-present Ground and nondual Suchness. Furthermore, states of consciousness can be trained in a certain order—often moving from gross, to subtle, to causal, to nondual—and this is an occurrence of state-stages.

Stages: While states come and go, stages, levels, or waves of consciousness are permanent structures in consciousness, which unfold cross-culturally from egocentric to ethnocentric to worldcentric to Kosmocentric—or in Gebser's terms, from archaic to magic to mythic to rational to pluralistic to integral. These structure-stages and almost without exception, the meditative and esoteric traditions of the world have no knowledge of this aspect of human growth. Because these are the structures in consciousness that will interpret the significance of various states of mystical union and creative visioning, no tradition or artist can afford to ignore stages of development.

The Relation of States and Stages (and Bodies): The three major states of consciousness (waking, dreaming, deep sleep) are supported by the three bodies (gross, subtle, causal). But separate from both states and bodies are what Vedanta calls sheaths of consciousness, which are similar to chakras and also to the developmental structures discovered by the West. The point is not whether there are five, seven, or ten levels in any given system, but rather that each of these systems appear to be covering the same general territory, from matter to body to mind to soul to Spirit—Christian terms—from annamayakosha (food/matter) to pranamayakosha (prana, elan vital) to manomayakosha (mind) to vijnanamayakosha (higher mind) to anandamayakosha (spiritual bliss)—Vedanta terms—from egocentric (me), to ethnocentric (us), to worldcentric (all of us), to Kosmocentric (all sentient beings)—developmental psychology terms. All of these are structures in consciousness to which one must develop through the necessary stages of unfolding—and you cannot skip structure-stages (state-stages are more flexible when it comes to "skipping around," although there are still clear stages of unfolding when states are trained.)

Any of the great spiritual and visionary states of consciousness can be accessed by nearly anyone at any stage of consciousness. How an artist will interpret a transcendental-visionary state experience will vary enormously depending on his or her level of development (are they egocentric or Kosmocentric? Third chakra or seventh?). There are "two kinds of higher." There are higher states of consciousness, and there are higher structures of consciousness. Fail to take either into account, and your ability to accurately understand and resonate with the full spectrum of art—not to mention the sentient beings on this planet—will be severely compromised.

Do you enjoy art? Are you an artist yourself? Is exploring the higher, deeper, and more inclusive aspects of your very own being something you care about? If so, we invite you to dive into this conversation.