Q and A

question: Why did you not film the painting more frequently in order to "animate" the process?

answer: There was no need to attempt to capture every moment of the painting in order to somehow visually animate the process. The digital medium all ready arbitrarily set limits to the painting as it records at about 30 frames per second. While this works well enough to create the illusion of movement from a human perspective, to fully capture the entirety of the painting ultimately one would have to film it at the speed of light itself. Clearly this is not possible, but the point is simply that the arbitrary points in which we chose to film and edit the painting, thus limiting it in some sense, are not as important as the arbitrary limits the mind sets in the experience of it. Mental limits such as designating one shot more complete then the next, or viewing it reflectively as a response built out of past experience, or really limiting it by classifying it in any way while experiencing it. Ultimately, these limits stem from a grasping of experience, however subtly present, built out of an identification with an abstract identity that perceives the experience of the painting as separate from itself. Penetration of these limits is what is key, not the fluid re-creation of an object. Although, animation may be just as useful in the process of such a penetration, so we will consider its use.

question: Is your painting experiment really anything new?

answer: No, it is not really anything new per se. Artists of many mediums including painting have had similar experiences of increased attention and a sense of "oneness" with what they were doing. In fact this is present beyond art in many other human activities. Presumably Pollock himself had a similar mindset and this resonates in his final product. We took his work as an inspiration and merely attempted to explicate the process. In so doing, it altered the very process (and the way we experienced it) and intensified it. Thus the film of the painting no longer simply resonates (as an object of experience) with this way of creating, rather it compels the viewer into the direct experiencing of the mindset out of which it was created increasing the transformative potential of the artwork.

question: In your work you mention that you did not have a projection of an outcome. Does not the creation of a "representation of consciousness" require a projection or an image in order to take place?

answer: In our presentation and paper we do not get into the specifics of the creation of the work of art, as this could entail an entire article in itself. We are primarily pointing to consciousness changing consciousness, the medium and the process that brings this about is not as important as the experiential "results". Certainly, in the process of creating the painting mental processes were likely to have been occurring subtly or unconsciously directing the outcome of the painting. These processes may of arose out of the deep implicate nature of mind and beyond to the Source of all creation. Although, the point we are making here is that our attention was not focused on these processes extending in time, rather it was simply focused (as much as possible) on the present moment-to-moment experiencing of painting. As projections of the painting arose, they were observed as any other phenomenon of consciousness, with a passive awareness and full acceptance. Thus according to the theory that that which is the focus of attention expands, the present moment expanded allowing space for pre-reflective or pure awareness to be realized while all other objects of experience including the painting, fade away as temporally extended phenomenal content of consciousness. What is materially left over from this process only indirectly represents this state of consciousness. However, it has the potential to directly point to this consciousness in the experiencing of the means in which it was created absent of discriminating awareness.

question: Is what you are referring to a scientifically viable theory? Does the creation of art have anything to do with a pre-reflective awareness or "pre-reflective self"?

answer: That is a very interesting question. Upon emailing John Taylor (the author of the consciousness studies we examined) a draft of the paper we wrote, he responded with his interest into what role the pre-reflective self may have in the creation of a work of art. He theorized that the pre-reflective self might act as a 'sentry' of emergent consciousness allowing subconscious elements to pass through into awareness within the creative act:
I conjecture that this may be due to the subtle balance between unconscious and conscious activity going on during the creative act in art. It is out of unconscious activity that somehow an artistically-acceptable version of the artist's inner world must be created. The pre-reflective self, acting as some sort of 'sentry' at the gateway of conteful consciousness, may be acting so as to let loose only certain types of artistic response, bubbling out of the unconscious pre-creative brain activities. I suspect that it is the development of this sentry at the gateway to conscious creative acts that is built up over the working life of an artist. It will be honed by limbic-system emotional values, until the artist is satisfied that the creation 'fits'. (Taylor email correspondence 2005)
My response is that the transformative art we describe would be that in which this emergent process would be attentively observed in the act of creation/observation. This penetrating yet passive observation results in an awareness of the entire process of the outflowing of pattern, projection, and conditioning attaching itself and simultaneously creating the object(s) of experience. The root meaning of the word art is 'to fit', yet we are under so many preconceptions of art and perception in general that this 'fitting' has lost it's deeper meaning and become a mere 'fitting' to our conceptions of aesthetic experience and experience in general. Transformative art has the potential to fulfill a deeper 'fitting' that of which lies not only in the realm of reflection, but also the Source of such. Ultimately such a 'fitting' takes us to a spontaneous Recognition of Self in which that which is 'fitted' and that which is 'fitted into' (the core of Being) are One. This would most likely occur in heightened states of attention, as the limbic-system emotional values are 'built down' through the expansion of present awareness. Thus, one enters into states pre-rational, pre-symbolic, and pre-historic. Yet instead of being left with the basic primal drives such as fear (fight or flight response) or raw desire, these pass through attention as having no meaning for they have been experienced, acknowledged, and transcended. What we are left with then are new emotions, sublime like one could say, that are beyond any spectrum of emotion thus far acknowledged. This higher spectrum of emotion (beyond current acknowledgment of emotions or 'closer' to the origin of perception), would as Pantajali stated, "move through all levels of creation" ending in the "unbounded Consciousness of the Self".

question: Does your citing of John Taylor's work provide a solid foundation to your arguments? Are you not mixing scientific, philosophical, experiential, and spiritual inquires?

answer: In regards to the second question, yes, that is exactly what we are doing. It is our view, as laid out by Todd Siler in Breaking the Mind Barrier , to take the logico-mathmatical viewpoint, aesthetic or poetic insight, or a combination of the two, as all basically "right" and self consistent. Siler uses this as a starting point for mapping out the mind and the universe through "meta-morphing" the universe and mind as a set of similar processes. This can also be a starting point for conceptual synthesis in which layers of thought on different levels are "proved" from a multitude of viewpoints simultaneously. Thus insight occurs between layers of thought or experience from rational thought to facts of one's being. Insight can occur in both directions adding depth and perspective variously relative to all levels of thought and being. While this may not be practical for such concerns as measuring the distance from the Earth to the Sun, it is becoming more and more apparent that such approach is useful if we are to deeply understand consciousness and it's workings. This is clearly demonstrated in the difficulty science has in grasping consciousness and why new approaches must be developed. In regards to the validity of Taylor's work, I am no expert on modern consciousness studies (who is?), so I cannot validate his claims fully from a scientific perspective. Yet, personally speaking, I have read many proposals that aim towards solving the "hard problem" of consciousness and Taylor's inquires seem to embody most clearly and directly these various levels. Since reading Penrose's Shadows of the Mind I have been skeptical about A.I. research and many other consciousness studies. Yet, Taylor's work seems to incorporate many aspects of understanding from the rational level, to the every day experiential level, and to the level of ancient esoteric wisdom and individual insight. In fact, before reading his work I had a similar line of thought of a pre-reflective awareness and the mind operating out of attachment to explicit and minute reflections of thought and perception in an essay I titled "Awareness as Pre-reflection: The Ground Inherent in the Drive Towards Unity and Liberation". As Taylor's work can be viewed and expanded upon by these different levels, various modes of inquiry can be made upon each level and transfer the insight gained from one to the other (expanding testable hypothesis, mapping new/un-observed processes thus bringing them into awareness, expanding the preconceived notions of the limits to consciousness, etc). No doubt within this broad inquiry, art can play a primary role on many different levels. It can either directly or indirectly point to and embody concepts on relative levels of thought and beyond to the non-conceptual. Our painting experiment may be a small example of such. It can open new questions such as, what is the nature of mind creating without a projection of outcome and the role pre-reflective awareness plays in such? What is "learned" from such an experience? What is the nature of learning based on an effortless and open awareness rather then forced concentration? Further, by relating the processes of attention that Taylor lays out for consciousness with the processes of the creation and experience of art, similarities may be drawn between the two in order to expand the transformative nature of art and expand the realm of consciousness inquiry simultaneously.

question: Is the process you speak of really effortless?

answer: It is not derived from a mere projection of effortlessness. Effortlessness does not arise from projecting it as the goal of creative activity, rather it arises by entering into a means absent of conditioned thought and perception. In the process of such creative work, negative thoughts may arise as it is a confrontation deep within the conditioned mind and the accumulated ego may feel threatened by the experience. Thus deep feelings or thoughts of doubt and questioning may arise as the mind grapples with entering into the unknown. If these thoughts or feelings are attended to, it creates a layer of division between the artwork and the self, which is exactly the ego's intention. From this, discrimination commands the resources of the creative mind and the notion of the artwork becoming something arises. This is reflected back onto the self, which inwardly projects this becoming psychologically. Thoughts arise of inadequacy, the need to make fewer mistakes, the need to become a better artist, the need to prove oneself through the work of art rather then simply letting it be, or the need to simply give up and try something else that can more explicitly secure itself. Thus from these extended concepts, the mind projects a future derived from the perceived inadequacy of the present. The attempt of the self to reach this projection is futile and effort arises to the extent in which the self attaches to its projections. Ultimately this ends in a dulling of reality or avoidance of life and the creative flowing of such. Therefore, within the creative act, effortless action arises as the integration of the artist and the artwork penetrates the conditioned layers of mind.

question: What about learning through pattern formation? Does the way you describe the creation of your artwork lead to a better understanding of the medium?

answer: If patterns are to be formed, patterns are to be formed, why inject the self into the situation? Certainly most art has with it either explicitly or subtly the connotation of becoming. The evolution of art movements and the progression of artists themselves are closely analyzed and labeled thus creating models for artist to project into their own work and mentality. No doubt pattern forming and reforming will continue to have a role in art as the deep infrastructure of the mind is built out of such and to attempt to wholly abandon it right away might lead to the art viewers or participators inability to attend to the artwork. Yet, what is the end of such pattern forming? Is it not an extenuation/reformulation of the known? As such, does it not continue the self-identity and conflict that goes along with it? Artists should take this as their starting point, to break free from pattern forming rather then seeking increasingly perfected realms of pattern forming as their goal. In regards to understanding the medium and it's creative use, clearly one is to engage in a certain amount of pattern forming if they are to understand the potential of the medium per past understanding . This can be used even in transformative art, as an artist can take a familiar context that they have incorporated into themselves and transcend it, thus allowing others to follow the same path. Yet the transformative view does not take these processes as necessarily extending or evolving in time. Rather one takes the medium and their knowledge of it as it is , not projecting into it notions of becoming. Thus, this opens the space of free expression arising out of the depths of the unknown. In so doing, the mediums transformative potential is fully realized, while not necessarily incorporating past conceptions of the mediums use. Then over a transformative artist's lifetime it may appear as though they are evolving explicitly from an increased knowledge of their medium, though in actuality, they are prim

question: Does your painting experiment really relate to modern technology and art?

answer: No, not really. It is more like a "last" attempt of painting to move beyond itself synergistically with the arising of interconnected and telemetric art. To do so, technological elements were used, but not to extend these elements as far as possible, but to use them as a background context that enables the experience of the painting to reach it's full potential. The process is still key, and there is absolutely no reason it can't apply equally or even more so within interconnected technological environments. The spontaneous arising we attempted to capture by making this experiment can perhaps flow even more directly through interconnected levels of human experience engaged in a real-time present happening transcending time and space even more profoundly.

question: Still you do not deal specifically with interactivity. Does this not limit the meaning of your experiment within the modern art movement?

answer: The interactivity is of a mental nature, for to creatively enter into the movie of the painting demands much inner attention and the extent in which one individually "puts into it" is the extent in which it is "received". In the process, one realizes they are a part of the creation by observing the arising of the experience within their own consciousness. However, I'm sure many in the field would not consider this interactive and for good reason, as interactivity can extend much further into the creative act. Yet, many interactive projects are conceptually based and the mere idea of interaction is enough to label it as such and be done with it. If one is only to look closely at their mental process, one will observe their reactions stemming from years of conditioning both within their organism and memory. Thus action from such only acts as a response however subtly present within consciousness. Transformative interactive art needs to recognize this conditioning as it's starting point and then creatively open paths beyond it, towards integrated and non-divided action.

question: What about connectivity?

answer: Within the context of conventional painting, our experiment potentially extends the connective element of the experience of the painting further then any painting prior (that we know of at least). Rather then simply hanging on a wall or copied in a book, in which viewers come to it at different angles in different points in time and space, the video presentation brings it to a collective audience. The camera singularly captures the painting at various angles and close up shots and movements. Thus in viewing it, the audience follows it's creation and presentation in a much more collective manner then if it were to be resting statically in a gallery. Though again, this type of connectivity can be much expanded upon within the contexts of modern networking technology. Even as this is so, just like we are quick to label interactive projects, we are quick to label projects founded on the idea of increasing connectivity between users separated by vastly separated distances. Take for example the project, Telemetric Vision . In it people from widely separated locations interact with each other as they are projected onto a singe screen seemingly locating themselves in a single virtual space. Yet their responses are only based upon stimuli of the outer appearance the distant other. It is revealing that in a review of this project the author notes that the conduct often resulted in overt sexual stances and questioned why such occurred. If one looks closely at the project experientially, one will observe the continuing import of the body. And while the participants may be conceptually projecting themselves into a single space, attachment to their separate bodies remains strong if not increases by attaching to an even further abstracted image of their body on a video screen. A transformative viewpoint might be to take internal snapshots of the participant's bodies somehow and project that real-time onto a single screen. Then they may be able to see each other on the inside the way the body really is , organs and all. Though this is still based on appearance, what interactive connectivity really calls for both between mind to mind and mind to artwork (or system or network) is an openness of expression (representing of individual or system's consciousness) that can penetrate the accumulated mindset regarding long distance communication. Why should this communication be limited to symbols, artistic preferences, conditioned desires, attraction/aversion, or any object of experience extended in time? Why not an instantaneous communication of being? Participators will not just participate in art or technology, they will increasingly participate in Reality itself.

question: You do not address computing or artificial intelligence, how does that come into play with your theory of "representing consciousness"? answer: That is difficult to answer as it depends on the way one views consciousness. If one views consciousness as primarily composed of and arising out of a system of explicated processes of sufficient complexity, (stemming from an attachment to similar inner processes extended in time) one may simulate/generate these processes outwardly yet at the same time increasingly become unaware of the ground that gives rise to reflective awareness which is what the projection of technology depends upon. Further, this can lead to an illusion of progress, evolution, or understanding within a hierarchy of relative realms of accumulated knowledge. What appears to be an increasing of power (control of nature) and perception (extension of perception) through technology, only secures and eventually confounds the self identity. As vast historical and scientific data extend through a single present space of the global information network, one can get caught in the ongoing processes of outer and inner accumulation/expansion (reflected in the self, or projected into technology). One can see this accumulation as representing the output of thousands of years of reasoning and hold onto the notion of the self in creating what is viewed (and the way it is viewed) in the present. While what the global network really points to is the collective mind's increasing ability to reflect. To reflect as an expanded awareness transcending the boundaries of categorical time, intuitively realizing the full potential implicated within present awareness. One can argue that this is only so due to the evolution of human reason and technology, and this may be so on a collective level. Yet, are we really to believe that the minds potential of a greater reflective awareness somehow grew out of this? Surely it was within the mind all along, just not explicated in the way modern technology has the potential to embody. Further, it simply makes sense that as the 'ability' to reflect within an expanded present increases, one increasingly comes to the Source of such reflection or the pre-reflective Self. This expanded awareness increasingly becomes un-attached to accumulation of knowledge and patterned action, as they are extended in time, thus diluting the full Content of a pure present awareness. This Content is no less a realization of the entirety of what is , and the non-divided movement of such wholly un-extended in time. So, to answer the question, if one simply perceives the extent of consciousness to be a set of processes without a ground, then one may perceive computers or information networks as 'representing consciousness'. However, if one takes a larger perspective of consciousness, one will see the projections of minds and their workings as they are. This does not exclude the possibility of a so called 'singularity' in which awareness 'arises out of' the network. Yet, such an arising will not come about through a projection of such, so what is there really to do about it?

answer: No. Abstraction simply arose as the most effortless means of communication. Others with a greater skill in painting may have created different types of form, perspective, and representation within the same process we were engaged in. Thus, their increased skill creates more contexts to transcend (then followed back through by an observer). Although transformative art has no use of maintaining images derived from habituated perception, they may be used to transcend or transform the way the image is perceived and if powerful enough, transform perception itself. An example of the transformative use of imagery is the work of Alex Grey. He transforms the image of body by penetrating the thin layer of skin that is so easily ignored (as covering flesh, muscle bone, circulatory systems, etc). Though his images are clearly very powerful to just about anyone who views them, a spectrum exists in which the viewer can take in meaning and even transformative potential. One can look at an image he creates of a human form penetrating higher levels of consciousness, as simply as one glimpses at a well drawn cartoon. Or the work can draw the viewer into that very experience or at least subtly or explicitly break down the barriers of the conditioned mindset blocking one from the direct experiencing of such. What creates this spectrum of perspective is what we have described above with the level of attention, though clearly this may happen without recognizing or labeling the process. So again, it gets back to perspective, or the means by which the work is created and experienced and therefore what we label as abstract or representational, formal or informal, is secondary to the processes in which it arises within and 'taken back into' consciousness.

question: This process you speak of does not seem very practical. Can you lay out some practical steps or guidelines for those interested in pursing it in their own work?

answer: Once one not only conceptually understands what we are pointing at, but also intuitively realizes it, they may find an infinite variety of ways of pointing depending on their own capabilities (seeing beyond their limitations). Painting was just the way most open to us. Yet from observing the process, certain conditions stand out as being beneficial to it. These conditions have more to do with framing consciousness than anything else. These are not conditions to hold on to in any sense, rather they act as interconnected mental pointers that have the potential to move the mind beyond itself and all it's conditioned ways of action and perception.

1. Impermanence: The flux of processes and the ephemeral winds of experience seek silently to be recognized in a world filled with self-created geometries and conceptual division. By recognizing the impermance of the art object one may also recognizes the impermanence of the self. In our experiment we decided that we would burn the painting after we 'completed' it. While this was only a projection of the future, it served to frame the mind by focusing on what was present, as what was to be left? What could we then claim as 'ours' or our 'doing'? As an 'experiential painting' who would claim to own someone's experience, including their own?
2. Non-attachment: Subtle as it is, attachment affects all levels of image grasping. By recognizing the artwork entirely as a movement (non-static object or process), grasping on any level is perceived as a diversion to the movement and hopeless in nature.
3. Non-divided movement: Movement not in time. Entirety of what is.
4. Spontaneous arising: Absent the mindset of doing or becoming and the center that creates such notions, what else is left?
5. Effortless action: No effector and projections of such, no effort.
6. Present awareness: Present awareness 'in', Present awareness 'out'. Only the direction of such is an illusion.
7. Infinite Being: I am Infinite Being. What more to say?
Clearly, these are all linked and one could think of many more such mental pointers. It would be really silly for one to try to make a system out of such, rather one must find what is most useful to themselves. The deep interconnections between them does not speak to their lack of potential, instead it speaks to the lack of conceptual thought's ability to grasp what is so near to experience. So, in answer to your question, what is more practical then what is?

question: Beyond the pointing, does your painting experiment project any meaning?

answer: No, though meaning may be projected into it. For instance after one has viewed the film a couple times, beyond the transformative potential one may find deep meanings within it that can not be full explained. For example, one could compare the arising of the painting and it's conclusion as the arising of perception itself. First appear singular objects, thus subject-object duality may emerge. Then an emergent disorder results as perception grasps with the plentitude and variety of objects of experience. Then formulation arises like that of understanding, communication, and rational thinking, thus linking the various objects of experience in some abstract way. Then fully abstracted thought waves reach into the depths of intuition seeking the subtle operations of mind that are necessary for perception. Then as the perception of objects is seen as flickering on and off between content and non-content, abstraction arises out of nothingness. Finally, a unified movement emerges in which the whole field of vision and being itself, are perceived as One. If one has seen the film, they can try to imagine it in relation to the arising and connecting of art, technology and consciousness. These lines of thought never occurred in making the painting and are clearly subjective. Yet, should this be seen as a hindrance to meaning? Rather these meanings seem to lie within the realm of synchronicity and have a deep implicated potential, thus allowing expansion into further explicated levels of thought and meaning. What meaning can be found if a similar process like this painting experiment were to be engaged across an entire network of simultaneously interconnecting participators? Take computing itself, the diffraction of light and the movement of micro-matter is running into processing powers exponential growth. Quantum computing appears to be next, though at least for a long while, with limited functionality such as securing/breaking codes and other intractable mathematical problems. So what of a computer running on/tapping into the synchronous movements of the deep implicate structure of the universe. What is the quickest way to an answer… a synchronicity, as it is formed before the question is fully realized. If an atmosphere or environment could be created supporting such, users will surely have to adapt. The model could be that of the Shaman. Like the Shaman finding meaning (thus shaping group perception) within patterns in a bone or the entrails of a sacrificed animal, participators would enter into similar states of consciousness- expanding the transformative potential of the medium and transforming the matrix of experience (space-time relativity), into a matrix of Meaning. Out of this matrix will arise the global mind and the simultaneous transferring of meaning within both implicate and explicate structures. From a single “shared” awareness, content will flow harmoniously as synchronous engagement arises throughout all levels of the network from the abstracted content to within the very material structure. The necessary condition for this flow to arise is non-attachment and absolute acceptance (imagine a neuron holding onto it's signal or not allowing another to pass through it). Certain pathways may emerge, but it is not from the “choice” of a single participator (neuron) but through the implicate workings across a field of such explicating itself globally throughout the network creating global states or pathways to higher dimensions of understanding/realization.

question: Awakening to our mental projections seems radical, can you explain further?

answer: What can one really say in regards to this? Rather, it seems to be more of a continual investigating. This "investigating" can be enhanced by pointing out the falsity of our conditioned experience or by pointing at the Truth of the one Source of all experience. Obviously, this is by no means dogmatic in either direction as it requires an openness and individual looking. Therefore one need not take the word of another but is required to witness the self identity as it arises and forms reality. In relation to technology, it is a freeing ourselves from the collective projection that ultimately limits technologies full potential. Our explicit or subtle definitions and notions of technology shape and limit our mindset in tapping into this potential. I think these notions are based on three interconnected viewpoints: technology as extension of human will/expression, technology as extension of perception/cognition (including A.I.), and technology as extension of comunication/connetivity. Technology may be seen to incorporate other extensions of human life, yet it is most likely founded on one or a combination of these three viewpoints. If we simply take these viewpoints and concepts they are built out of for granted, with little or no insight into them, then what we project into technology will ultimately be limited by them. If we look closely into each one of them and find them to be subtly built out of conflict, then that conflict will ultimately manifest itself by extending them outwardly into 'technology'. The conflict arises from the inherent separation in each one: willer/willed upon, expresser/that which is expressed, perceived/that which is perceived, knower/known, individual/the other. This inherent separation lies not in reality, rather it lies inherent within the conceptualizations of a fragmented mind. So if we are to tap into the full transformative potential of 'technology', we must simultaneously confront our deep conditioning and the center of such, as we enter into and expand digital contexts.

question: They way you are pointing seems to have no need of relating itself with technology and can arise and sustain itself on its own. Why mix the kind of art and pointing you are talking about with technology?

answer: Because it is.

question: What do you see as the endpoint in the coming or ongoing technological revolution?

answer: One can only guess and project from what one knows presently. If I were speculate on this I would point to the dual nature of mankind's perceived consciousness and the potential of integration or reconciliation of opposites: I/not I, any concept and it's opposite, any emotion and it's opposite, etc. Basically the two trends I see expanding in the near and distant future are the will to control and the drive towards integration. These trends can be viewed on many different levels of society and culture, yet it is most real within the individuals themselves that create and maintain the projected notions of society, culture, etc. In the individual, these trends lie deep within their consciousness and may go on with out being noticed as it lies not in what they perceive, but in the way in which they perceive. However, I think this will most explicitly be brought out within the emergent use of technology. It does not take much of an imagination to envision a computer made reality, as real as that which we consider reality today (thus a projection out of the way we view reality today), in which the user commands complete control. This environment, created and maintained by the individual will, will only seek to secure and expand the individual's notion of self. Thus in continually securing itself, it will continually reinforce it's beliefs and conditioned ways of perceiving, as beyond them lies the unknown or the uncontrollable. On the other hand is the drive to integrate which is represented in the emerging planetary consciousness and global network. Combined with increasingly direct forms of communication and interactivity (brain communication devises, biocomputers etc.) one will have the increasing ability to connect with others and interact within deep levels of consciousness and being. Giving up the will to control and attachment to the known, interconnected subjects will increasingly flow into higher consciousness, into a realm wholly unknown to our everyday awareness and relative viewpoints. Yet like most dualities, these two drives are interconnected and cannot be easily labeled. For instance, what may seem like an expansion of individual will may actually come from and end in integration. Likewise, something may outwardly appear to be furthering interconnectivity and integration while subtly increasing conflict and dis-integration. So one is left only to accept both extremes and all in-between as that which is all-powerful and ever-present shines forth incorporating yet transcending both extremes and all other dualities. In this situation the importance of art and the effect it has in shaping individuals sense of reality increases exponentially. It will have equal potential in maintaining and securing conditioning and the conflict arising out of such, or in leading the drive towards integration, as it recognizes and simultaneously points towards the Source of all creation. Artist as individuals must recognize this confrontation, understand their responsibility, and face the coming embodiment of the universal Self either by holding onto conditioned levels of perception and conflict, or by tapping into the transformative potential deep within the universe, explicated on various levels including works (of all kinds) of art. As this comes to the brink, individuals (what is left of such a notion) will each have their own experience of reality (already is such just not recognized due to pattern forming etc.). The connective factor of mankind (global mind) will no longer be in that which is perceived or cognized (memory, conventional language, thought patterns, instinct, etc.), rather it will lie in the Recognition of Single Awareness and the Source of such. The movement that is now perceived as the evolution of man, art, and technology will no longer fall under such distinctions. Rather it will be a movement not based in time and void of all division. Though, as artists, we need not project this confrontation out somewhere in the distant future with technology far beyond present capabilities, rather it can only be directly confronted in that which is eternally present, Now.