My first remark is that there is a distinction that has to be made between an integral artwork (an object that elicits an integral aesthetic sense) and the interpretive capacity audience persons can have in order to fashion the fullest possible response/appreciation to an artwork object. The former is a matter of semiotics (see my Polysemy essay); the latter is a matter of training and perspective-taking in the context of the art world and interpretation/perception through art. As we all know, to really experience enhanced meaning from art takes some patience, hard work, and dedication.

The work of Abigail Housen (not Houseman) has detected five major stages of aesthetic response in the part of viewers of visual art (as well as four more transition stages). This is a vast topic (see my To Suspend Disbelief essay on her work). But it bears note that Housen traces aesthetic-response development through the inquiries the viewer implicity utilizes to interpret art -- stage 1 'what?', stage 2 'how?', stage 3 'who?' stage 4 'when?', and then with stage five, all these questions in an integrated inquiry into meaning. Her research and conclusions find a pattern of development of aesthetic-response (again, to visual art, the subject of her study) that proceeds from egocentricity to, in short, a kind of vision-logic, an integrated perceptive capacity.

My point is that there is only a limited value in using Housen's research (or any aesthetic-interpretive theory) to talk to artists about artwork or even marketing products such as this ILP package. It is basically apples and oranges (both being fruit, but with entirely different tastes). My favorite, btw, are Harelson apples, second being Cortland, for what it's worth (next to nothing).

The second remark is that this ILP Package is not artwork. It is something else -- namely a product that is being offered to the market that II caters (or attempts to cater) towards. They think there is a demand, and so they want their products to be the supply. This takes us away from a more strict consideration of art and into a realm were things might be 'artistic' or 'creative', to be sure, but it is not art, or collaborative art. Thus the aesthetics have to do with advertising and convincing people to buy.

Now before the team graphic designers on this project have my head (I know these cats), let me hasten to point out that the ILP project not being a piece of artwork is hardly a bad thing. It is rather wise it is not. Artwork, as I define it in my work, is 'intuition captured in a frame', no matter the medium or framing material.

And this sort of quality is not what a thought-out, long-planned, long-worked on marketing product of an institution ought be based upon. The stakes are too great. What with marketing research, the kind of planning and logistics, public relations, capital required, and on and on -- as a person who's day-job is at a Chicago advertising agency, you learn right quick that to treat what we produce as artwork is a recipe for a poor product. I actually participated in the very early discussions about this product, when I was still part of II. If the dynamic of that time held through the duration of the product creation, II was trying to be creative/innovate within the particular constraints of their market.

(It bears note that with artwork, too, certain constraints are in play, if the artist wants his/her artwork to have a coherancy and resonance with the audience. It is just that these sorts of constraints are not nearly as narrow as those for marketed products.)

There is a degree of overlap between the advertising world and the artistry world (a much longer subject, and a very provocative subject of an upcoming essay of mine), but there are strong distinctions between the two worlds. If nothing else, the presence of money requires the severe toning-down of raw intuition, thus cutting out a fundamental component of what makes really great art what it is.

The aesthetic sense of the cover of this ILP thang is indexed to its semiotic connection with the market -- people who are going to purchase this product. To be successful, it has to hit the referent-points that people can recognize without a lot of thought. And not just hit the points of recognition, but with an amplified, memorable, unique message. It cannot alienate, it cannot be confusing, it cannot be a 'thinker'. Thus you see the iconography of line-drawings (both male and female in typical gender-poses, as well as what looks like hands in a meditation position). These have a brand-connection with the iconography on INaked.

You see a hip Asian couple, a businessman, and an educated-looking older woman (could be a teacher, middle-mgr, arts administrator, etc). And you have buzzwords -- body, mind, spirit, transform. There is a science to all of this, and it is what you find constitutive of advertising agencies, who have their fingers to the pulse of what consumers need to see/hear/feel/sense in order to take their credit card out of their wallet or purse.

I have no idea whatsoever whether these are proper choices given the market for this sort of thing, nor do I know the craftmanship involved in the assembly of this project will be an engine to II's bottom line (personally I'm uninterested in this product, other than the fact that a good buddy is part of it, and I'm very happy for him, cuz I know how hard he has worked).

If this project is anything like Wilber's previous works, it works to satisfy long-time customers/readers, but in fact is more attuned to appeal to those new to integral, new to Wilber, new to this whole thing, because it capitalizes in the excitment that people generally feel (call it being 'drunk with integral') when they first encounter this wondrous world of Wilber.

You see this strategy in the recent projects: INaked was marketed to 22-year-old males (initially, before they toned down the elicit sex stuff -- 'intercourse' became 'discourse' in the reader forum), who were new to integral. TOE was marketed to business persons with an intellectual bent (with the W Bennis endorsement), who were new to integral. IU was/is marketed to academians who require a strong degree of respectibility, stability, and peer-review, as if they were new to integral. Wilber himself stated that he wrote/writes his books as if he has to explain his system from the very beginning. This is in fact a choice, not a necessity as he as cleverly claimed.

All of which makes sense if you consider that the prime driver behind II and its projects wants to grow, be known, get big, be famous, and infiltrate pop culture. This requires a constant appeal to 'new'. It even requires an obsession with pop culture, and an obsession with public reputation.

And so long-time fans of Wilber, don't bemoan the fact that you don't like the aesthetic of ILP. It isn't marketed to the you of right now. It is rather marketed to those people who, right now, are like you were when you first dove into Wilber's pond. Excited, thrilled, and willing to spend money to participate in the so-called revolution.