A bit of my thoughts on the subject...
I haven't read this in any specific book, but someone on the Integral Naked forums quoted Ken as saying "Art is anything with a frame around it". That makes sense to me, so then I think it would stand to reason that integral art is anything with an integral frame around it. We make frames for ourselves and our lives every day. As Stuart Davis says, we create "bullshit narratives" that we pretend explain who we are, when in actuality they're just frames that we arbitrarily place around infinite experience. Integral art is the frame that knows it's a frame. Not self-referential in the post-modern sense, but in the sense of knowing any persuit in the finite realm is a contraction from the infinite, and that's okay. Because we can simply witness the contraction arising. And play the game.
Integral Art contains a connection to everpresent suchness, but also realizes that the finite side of the story must continue to evolve, and that is the motivation to create art in the first place.
In a sense, I think any active, conscious artist who can ask the question "What is Integral Art?" is probably already creating it.