Axiom: all art is a form of communication. In primitive times, art necessarily needed to approximate objects as closely as possible, since humanity was just beginning to break out of the shell of subjectivity for the purpose of an efficacious society. As systems of objectification became more and more complex, the function of art necessitated a dialectical inversion: art moved away from pragmatic to aesthetic functions, and the gulf between the two categories of communication became wider and wider. The function of increasingly anti-pragmatic, and purely aesthetic art was to realign us with primordial subjectivity, which is exactly antithetical to art's most basic purpose. Jackson Pollock, when asked if he was inspired by Nature, responded: "I AM nature." This statement suggests that Pollock felt his artwork was not a means of REPRESENTING nature, but a process of REUNITING his alienated and objectified self with nature's primordial forces. Thus his artwork focuses on PROCESS more than PRODUCT, another dialectical inversion. Against Greenberg, who argues that modernist art is perfect because it serves no function, I argue that the function of modernist art is enigmatic because it is paradoxical: it seeks to communicate the incommunicable; it functions as a portal to that which is beyond functional endeavor. Nonetheless, now that humanity has seen the dialectical inversion of the purpose of art, with all kinds of non-representational movements from modernism to dadaism, the new function should not be to privilege subjectivity over objectivity, aesthetic over pragmatic, or vice versa, but to jettison and embrace BOTH categories and produce art that dissolves any sense of isolated purposes. Although some might shirk from the connotation of these two terms, which stem from outside academia, I call this approach to art: holistic, or integral.