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

own paintings, or on interpretations from others, or even on speculative models. These
alternatives are certainly subjective, probably incomplete and/or distorted, but they are
virtually all we have to work with. Science has nothing to offer when it comes to
symbols or unravelling of metaphor. There are no generally accepted methods for
translation nor is there any sign of such a thing in the near future. Any picture can be
interpreted in quite different ways by any two 'experts' each following their own theories
and I know of no empirical evidence which supports one approach at the expense of
another. There is evidence that there are loose associations between psychiatric
disturbance and psychiatric indicators in pictures, but we cannot assume there will be a
simple point for point mapping between verbally explained and non-verbal
symptomatology, or even a direct relationship.
How will research benefit from a psychopathology of art?
As a general topic, there are a surprisingly high number of unknowns about art activity.
We know very little about visuospatial cognitions except that understanding is not coded
verbally. Advances in behaviourial science, the clearer definition of diagnostic
classifications for mental illness and the greater accuracy of statistical procedures give
hope for advancement in fields which have been traditionally problematical because of the
interaction of confounding variables.
Specifically, for art therapy to be seen to be effective: that is, to change the
condition of the patient, psychotherapy needs to be closely related to topics in which the
symptomatology is present. This has not yet been demonstrated in the effects of art
42