In discovering and defining what is, or may not be, an integral art, the list of questions has only grown longer, deeper and more far-ranging.  Some of the questions are as follows: What is an integral artist?  What is integral art?  Is the term ‘integral’ as applied to art a valid one, or simply a kind of oxymorontautology, a definition title assigned to that which is, by its very nature, already ‘integral’?  And if indeed the term is valid in application haven’t there already been many historical schools, styles of art, or individual artists that already embodied the term?  Does integral art have an historical baseline?  Has it existed before, or is this something utterly new?  If all other fields can be termed integral, why and how can the fine arts also be described as such?  And this last question is most certainly a key one.  Prof. Philip Rubinov Jacobson is in complete agreement with Ken Wilber regarding the need to lay groundwork for delineating an integral art.  In so doing, it is essential to recognize that the art, the creative workers’ characters, and the use of art as an integral part of their transpersonal-practice, are all inextricably combined.