The psychopathology of everyday art: a quantitative Study - World ...

or drawing progresses, relationships and reinforcement develop between the parts of the
composition, which can be monitored by the therapist, or manipulated to produce
specific reactions, as with a conversation.
This overview does not provide a historical survey, which would both step
outside the conceptual boundary of this thesis and require more space. The background
is only discussed as far as it affects this thesis. It introduces two kinds of assessment
which informed the study of psychiatric art: case studies, which are split into four areas;
and projective testing. Although limited, this background is important here because many
of the assumptions underlying the theoretical base used to analyse content, especially in
impressionistic studies, hark back to speculations that were published at the turn of the
century but have been subject to serious criticism ever since 6 ; for example, the confusion
of relations between insanity and artistic creativity. This section also introduces a few
of the terms and jargon commonly used in studies of art but not all of them since many
are based on theoretical assumptions which do not concern this study 7 .
6
But not from writers on psychopathological art. D. Waller (1991) op.cit. gives an account of the
development of current theory but there is little personal comment. Most writers on art therapy rather than
tackle arguments try to embrace a range of apparent contradictions by modifying or integrating theory;
Waller explains "art therapy is a term which has been used to describe a collection of diverse practices, held
together fundamentally by their practitioners' belief in the healing value of image-making", Waller and
Gilroy (1992) introduction, op.cit. Dalley and Case (1992), Handbook, op.cit. write that art activity is
both a conscious process (p.51, 98) and an unconscious process (p.64), point out that images are complex
and take time to understand both for the therapist and the artist and need discussion (p.52, 64) and Dalley
goes on to interpret a series of paintings left by a client who never spoke to her (p.118). Notable
exceptions are David Maclagan (1989) who includes acerbic comments in his articles concerned with the
relation of verbal psychotherapy to the image produced, see for example, The Aesthetic Dimension of Art
Therapy: luxury or necessity, Inscape , Spring: 10-13; John Birchtnell (1981) Is Art Therapeutic?, Inscape ,
V(I).p.10 and J. Champernowe (1971), Art and Therapy: an uneasy partnership? Am. J. Art Therapy ,
April, X(3):131-143 which gives the bones of the arguments.
7 Dalley and Case (1992) op.cit., p.60-3 gives a useful glossary and explanation of the main analytic terms
and interpretations, but there is no generally agreed standardisation.
18