THE ART HOLON

Christophe, you bring up a really good point here:

"[In some of Wilber's older essays] He stuffs the states on top of the stages, which is, as we know after reading Integral Spirituality, no longer an accurate description of what's going on. He also speaks about Transpersonal Art, not Integral Art. What's the difference? Is the transpersonal art bound to the higher states (psychic, subtle, causal)? What about the stages? There is some confusion here about this."

I do think there is some confusion and there hasn't been, at least as far as I am aware, any significant cleaning it up yet.

See, from my standpoint - and I've been trying to figure out a way to say this for days -the earlier stuffing of states on top of stages still leads many of us to believe that "spiritual art" is the one and only next big step. But there is a huge problem with that, because, if one simply looks at history, spirit and art being wed is hardly anything new, at all. The whole development of art in the west - in terms of at least music, painting, sculpture, architecture - is to be attributed to the patronage and interest of the Catholic Church. We wouldn't have music as we know it without Bach - and he was a church organist! Even the technology of an organ, harpsichord, pianoforte which all led to the modern piano and music of today, even the notes and scales. What of Michael Angelo? The Church was interested in the power of art to communicate scripture, and it's spiritual message, to anyone. Converts and faithful alike. The Biblical narrative might be meaningless until one has seen it and/or felt it expressed in powerful images, or moving music. To this day, music remains a vital aspect of any Christian service, for many, a vital aspect of their Christian life. Hence, the multibillion dollar phenomenon of Christian music. There were the Passion Plays and Miracle Plays in the middle ages. Gibson's The Passion recently proved this point all over again on a mass, world scale. However much we might criticize the film (which is actually a great study in stages, lines, art, spirit, actually), millions and millions of people felt otherwise, had their faith and their own passion of spirit renewed and deepened because of it. But go back further in both stages and history and, before the mythical, the magical was and is just a field day of art/spirit experience and expression. (Once again, using music as an example coming out of tribal Africa.) They were scarcely seen as any sort of different thing in many cases. The whole notion of "inspiration," which can be found in Plato, the Muses, means that it was spirit or God who was behind it. The whole idea of a "gift" for an art. Mus-ic, means, literally 'of the muse,' literally means art of/from spirit.

And that's where we have to be very careful. In one respect, all that anything Integral would be doing is simply recapturing (believe it or not) something of that element and, of course, doing so in a significantly new light. The new light, however, also needs to be understood properly as well.

The whole accomplishment of the Enlightenment was to, for the first time, differentiate art from religion (and so spirit). So what we really have is a good deal of that differentiation between stages and states. 41 symphonies were Mozart's accomplishment as a result of his own individual will, intention, knowledge, genius and merit, not any muse or intervention from God. For those who had moved on to rational and no longer found any sound authority in the mythic church, art naturally began to become the alternative for the exploration of deeper meaning and morality. (And this is also not even to speak of the whole potential discussion of art and morality and their wedding through the ages.)

And so thus, we have at least three different lines of development going on here (and probably many more) that are present from square one and continue to develop alongside of one another, often together, all through development and evolution: spirit, morality, art (e.g. multiple lines -music, language, space, etc.)

To say that Integral Art is deeply or overtly spiritual art is only significant in that there is a statement to be made that spirit still exist in the rational and post-mythic, post magical world and human reality. Indeed, that is not to be underestimated. But it does not mean in any way, shape or form that spirit in art - or even art as spiritual experience, spiritual expression, spiritual vehichle or spiritual path - is in any way something new. It might certainly seem new, but it is only new in the post-mythic, post-magical sense with respect to the fact that art, in it's development over the last 300 years in the West, has been largely void of Spirit in any legitimized way. But even that is just a sheen. Becasue with closer look you see nothing but artists everywhere integrating spirit and art, or attempting the integration. Integral just has a way of legitimizing this and validating it. A way of saying, yes, this is something genuine, real and good.

There's more to say on this subject but I'll leave it more or less there for now. The thing is, I can trace this to my own experience. i.e. wow, art/spirit . . . that's the new thing! But it's deceptive. It only seems so new and radical because spirit has been so de-legitimized in our culture, and quite all over the place in our art culture. i.e. one can do a whole volume on just how the arts have had a field day with de-legitimizing spirit and religion But then when I began to look at history in one of my own fields (acting, drama, comedy) I began to see a different story emerging. All the greats integrated spirit, or something close to that. Which also only makes sense, since spirit does not simply pop out on the top of stages, after someone is "fully" developed . . . Nor does it go away once we enter into a world of scientific rationality.

Peace, Tim