After reading the article “Art as Spiritual Practice-The Mission of Art” by the author Grey, I got much more insights into the real meaning of art and its relationship to spiritual practice. The author first describes the difference between seeing and looking, and regard it as “a difference which is fundamental to artist experience” (Grey, 72). Then, he used Saint Thomas Aquinas’s 3 things needed for beauty to further explained the different art experience, through wholeness, harmony and radiance” (Grey,73). Later, the author introduced the a brief process of creative formulation, and states that artists need to be sensitive about their creative process. After introducing the process of creativity, the author brought up novel ideas that “Art can be interpreted from the standpoint of its cultural legitimacy or success.”(Grey, 92). In this relation, the author connects the process of creating art to spiritual practice, in which that the quality of an art project is based on the awareness and being that the artist is being accessed or transmitted. According to Grey,  “In order to experience art fully viewers must go through a mini ego death by placing themselves in the inspired mind of the artists” (74). I kind of disagree with this viewpoint, and I do not think that we should put ourselves in the position like an artists to understand the artwork. We should not limit our innovation in the shoes of the artist and this must restrict the diversity of the meaning of the art. We should conduct out own understanding based on our own experience or personal values, and creative spiritual practice through the way just like the author indicates in his article, from formulation, saturation, incubation, inspiration, translation to integration (Grey, 75). We should not require that the audiences to have an “inspired mind as artist” and we should create our own understanding model of art.