This thread us for discussions of Matt Rentschler's Understanding Integral Art paper (available to Multiplex members in the File Share).

---

Katie Heikkinen

Integral University Presents

An excellent paper. As far as I can see gives all the general contours and very helpful with references I had been looking for.

What is amazing to me, however, still, is that these contours and all that they involve have not been so obvious to others (the rest of the world and history), and sadly still aren't.

(In that respect alone, this is very worth the read for anyone, artist or not, who might be interested in what integral art is.)

I much appreciate a couple of things in particular (though it's hard to pick), such as one, the point of finding balance as a whole human being while still perusing creativity. I have never really subscribed to the "artist as misfit" or perpetually unbalanced human being idea, as if it has to somehow be that way (and provides a nice excuse or sanction for being a jerk.) An important subject in itself.

Also, the contours for a much more balanced (and evolved) criticism. It's so rare to find these days, if at all . . .

Peace, Tim

 

---

"With whom or with what are you in communion at this moment?"
. . ."I?" he replied, almost mechanically. "Why not with anyone or anything."
"You must be a marvel . . . if you are able to continue in that state for long."
-Constantin Stanislavsky

Tim,

Thanks so much for your comments :-) You're right that these papers--as well as the third, more advanced treatment I'm currently working on--give the general contours of Integral Art, which is both their strength (in that they can apply to virtually any artform) and their limitation (specific applications for various artforms still need to be developed).

I also agree that there's nothing inherent in being an artist that condemns you to crash and burn, although there are no shortage of examples of artists who have done just that. This, as you say, is an entire topic in and of itself, so expect more on this issue from the art center in the near future.

And thanks for noting the Integral art criticism sections of the paper. I can tell you the art center is committed to equally exploring artistic and academic expressions of Integral Art: everything from artistry to criticism to art education to art business and so on. All of which is essential.

Much respect,

Wrench

---

Matt Rentschler
Managing Editor, AQAL: Journal of Integral Theory and Practice
Co-Director, Integral Art Center

Hi Matt,

I will be looking forward to that third paper. I didn't realize there was going to be one, but it does make perfect sense.

Talking about balance and wholeness, I wanted to tell you, that last night, as the reult of reading your papers, I had a deep and profound dream encounter with my daemon.

Something, . . . I am rather kind of wishing did not happen. I will share on here if you or anyone else is interested. It is so important. It was only reading Grace and Grit just a few months ago that I had ever heard of such a real idea (daemon/demon) being taken seriously.

That said -

wrench:

 (specific applications for various artforms still need to be developed).

I am currently working on an Integral Theory of Acting (which of necessity has to expand outward to include the dramatic art -theatre, movies- in general, at least to some extent; the artfom(s) can not even exist, at least with any meaning, without a highly developed and structurally involved AQAL Matrix).

Would it be too soon to consider submitting even a brief outline of such a thing?

( I intend on writing a book which would include both professional and educational theory and applications . . .)

Peace, Tim

---

"With whom or with what are you in communion at this moment?"
. . ."I?" he replied, almost mechanically. "Why not with anyone or anything."
"You must be a marvel . . . if you are able to continue in that state for long."
-Constantin Stanislavsky

Oh, Matt, by the way, I wanted to mention how much I appreciated it mentioned (though relatively briefly) that no matter what, each potential artistic line of development must start out at square one.

I see this as extremely important to realize, and having taught for many years (mostly theatre and music, but theatre is a pretty "integral," multidisciplinary art form) I have seen it oh so many times.

No matter what -no matter what age, what mastery of other things, what cognitive level, even vision-logic or beyond- when you engage a new line artistically, you are literally back to square one and must develop through the necessary stages.

I think it's important because many or most people, even professionals, do not really realize this is the case. (In fact most professionals don't even acknowledge development as such these days.)

An adult should be "better," or easier to teach, right? Wrong. Further, this is still the truth regardless of heaps and loads of inherent talent and potential. (Perhaps the most important truth here to realize.)

No matter what, even quite amazingly and astoundingly, if this your first time - back first a sensorimotor and on into a preoperational confusion, necessary assimilation, accommodation, etc. an onward through the stages. And, there is just no getting around it.

A high cognitive level might help you "cope" or sometimes perhaps advance through the stages more quickly, . . . but it will not do the job for you in any way, right off the bat.

But the other side of this coin is that, in my opinion, far too many people get discouraged (or are discouraged) becasue the simple fact of the matter is . . . . this is a new line and they are at an early stage. It's a tragedy really. Have seen this all the time too. (i.e. "I can't do this," or "you can't do it" etc. and the line, even with existing talent, is never further engaged and I do think this is tragic, IMO . . . . in fact, that's a big gripe of mine.)

Anyway, I am so glad that was mentioned.

 

Peace, Tim

 

---

"With whom or with what are you in communion at this moment?"
. . ."I?" he replied, almost mechanically. "Why not with anyone or anything."
"You must be a marvel . . . if you are able to continue in that state for long."
-Constantin Stanislavsky

Hey Tim,

I'd be glad to offer feedback on your Integral Acting outline. You can send it to mrentschler at integralinstitute dot org.

And your daemonic experience sounds intriguing. If you're comfortable sharing it here, please share away :-)


Many thanks,

Wrench

---

Matt Rentschler
Managing Editor, AQAL: Journal of Integral Theory and Practice
Co-Director, Integral Art Center

Wrench,

I will get that summary to you ASAP. Perhaps as good timing, we are going tonight to see the new Las Vegas style () adaptation of The Phantom of the Opera -renamed as simply Phantom. With it being billed as a "spectacular"(), complete with shameless braggs about how many millions of dollars were spent on special effects (upwards of $40 million just to build the theatre) . . . well, . . . I am hoping this will give me some real inspiration to coherently outline what an integral theory of acting and drama (which not only takes all four quadrants, but the exterior and interior dimmensions of holonic reality into account) might finally look like.

Hopfully I will share more later about the daemon . . .

Peace Tim

---

"With whom or with what are you in communion at this moment?"
. . ."I?" he replied, almost mechanically. "Why not with anyone or anything."
"You must be a marvel . . . if you are able to continue in that state for long."
-Constantin Stanislavsky

Wrench,

Is there a more adequate reference for the work of Roberta Schomburg on her main stages of pretend play? Checking the internet I found sources that show this as a measurment up to about the age of 5-6 -is this correct?

Peace, Tim

---

"With whom or with what are you in communion at this moment?"
. . ."I?" he replied, almost mechanically. "Why not with anyone or anything."
"You must be a marvel . . . if you are able to continue in that state for long."
-Constantin Stanislavsky

Hi Tim,

For more resources on pretend play, try Jean Gowen's work (which is listed in the references for "Understanding Integral Art"), as well as Piaget's Play, Dreams and Imitation. Yes, the work of Schomburg (and Gowen and Piaget, for that matter) is largely focused on children. I've yet to investigate whether there are studies on pretend play in adolescence or adulthood, so you might keep an eye out for that when writing your Integral Acting piece. One possible start is to contact Schomburg directly and ask if she knows of any adult development studies on the subject. Her info is available here:

http://www.carlow.edu/academic/education/edufaculty.html

Respect + thanks,
W

---

Matt Rentschler
Managing Editor, AQAL: Journal of Integral Theory and Practice
Co-Director, Integral Art Center

Wrench,

Thanks for the info. I am familiar with Piaget, will be looking into Gowen (and did miss that reference), and will definitely get in touch with Schomburg.

Wrench wrote: I've yet to investigate whether there are studies on pretend play in adolescence or adulthood

There are High School musicals and so forth to consider, but I will be very surprised if anyone has investigated play past the stage where it ordinarily ends at early-mid conop. and/or then carried that forward to later stages and found it equated with acting. There really isn't much of anything in the reverse direction -from acting back to childhood-either. This is actually the very reason I asked. Because this is actually a very crucial juncture in the entire developmental puzzle and one of the major important items Ken’s work and Integral Theory has helped to point out.

 

To briefly describe (and “give away” some) we might say that mature conop (to even early formop) is the great “death” of childhood play. And it is demonstrably an AQAL occasion as well. Naturally conventional cultural standards and societal structures and expectations all impart big hands, and physiological maturation needs to be taken into account as well. But what is crucial to understand is that, interiorly, at this zone#2 stage, what occurred as play in childhood is just no longer possible. Not mentally, not emotionally, not operationally –or at least without some serious strain (and, of course, barring pathology). (And if you've ever been involved in a middle or high school production "serious strain" might sound familiar . . .)

 

This is actually why there is a certain ambiguous, hazy and seemingly indistinguishable gap between what children do (or seem to be doing) naturally, uninhibitedly and what actors are doing professionally. We might note here that this is actually the demarcation of a very difficult phase  where child actors suddenly “can no longer act” or need to begin to make a serious transition. There is the very real possibility of a “dramatic intelligence” that needs to be taken into account (and which I will be examining-I think it’s even plausible by Gardner’s standards) but more often than not, child acting careers end with childhood and it is actually more involved than that they are “just no longer cute.”

 

The exceptions to this rule are probably in possession of a legitimate dramatic/comedic intelligence that just now needs to make a crucial transition (and the list of lifelong professionals that attest to this is quite extensive –Helen Hays for example explained that she just reached a point where she had to learn an entirely new way to act or she just could not have gone on).

 

But what is the most exciting and perhaps most elusive point here is that despite the fact that mature concrete operational “kills” childhood play (and all the things romantics tend to glorify*) it is actually this stage that sets or completes the foundation for mature, creative dramatic/comedic acting at any or all of the later stages. Which is to say, the dramatic art and acting as we generally know it.

 

(* This is also the fulcrum of any associated pre/trans fallacy-an extremely important topic in itself with regard to acting, dramatic art, Boomeritis, etc.) 

 

I have illustrated it like this:

 

Roots-magenta

Foundation-amber

Emergence (of the art form as we know it)-orange

 

There are actually many more fascinating pieces to this puzzle, such as the fact that all mythic societies have historically not only never produced theatre or dramatic art as we know it (but often preserved the very close relation in mythic rituals or selective presentations within strict mythic rules, content and contours) but amber societies have also always historically denounced it and any kind of acting whatsoever. Called it sinful, demon possession, never allowed it . . . and actors have a long and colorful history of being discriminated against, outcast, burned at the stake or as David Mamet notes “left by the side of the road with a stake in the heart.” Basically, what we see here is amber fighting against magenta, red and orange,  –which can also be observed today in those members of society who just can not stand Hollywood and would love to burn it or seriously regulate it. 

 

Anyway, hope you find this semi-interesting and thanks again for the info. but definitely let me know if you happen to come across anything that looks into this.

 

Much Peace, Tim

 

---

"With whom or with what are you in communion at this moment?"
. . ."I?" he replied, almost mechanically. "Why not with anyone or anything."
"You must be a marvel . . . if you are able to continue in that state for long."
-Constantin Stanislavsky

Matt, thanks for your great summary of the integral art approach. It's very minimalistic but well researched and clearly written, and hence reliable as a starting point and reference tool.

I'm starting a blog that is my attempt to go deeper into the art of guitar playing from an integral perspective, and I'd  greatly appreciate any feedback,m suggestions, responses and so on. I've been reading Wilber for more than a decade, but it's still a challenge, even to place things properly in the quadrants!

Writing it out really helps me to work out all the holes and bugs in my understanding of integral and aqal. And I find that the integral framework provides an ncredible, meaningful outline which gives me so many ideas and avenues to explore, while relating them in a meaningful way to everything else.

For me, the question of "what is integral art" is superceded right now by the more useful question of "how can I apply integral perspectives to my chosen forms of artistic self-expression?"

I'm also heavily involved with the New York Integral Salon, and we'll be using your article as one of our sources for a theory discussion on Integral Art, this December, so I'll have some questions for you, when I have time.

Once again, thanks for your work, and for starting this discussion. I'm busy but plan to contribute to it and help it stay running.

And everyone, please check out my blog at http://artofguitar.blogspot.com/
Or, if you want to read pretty much the same thing, and prefer a white background :), read it at my website, jaykauffman.com. Look for the little guitar "key chain" and click on that. (it says "guitar tips" underneath it.

Blessings, Jay K

---

"I always try to get up every morning..." Jimi Hendrix