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

Thematic interpretation varied with the patient and was dependent on the relationship
with the therapist. No common correspondence could be discerned when comparing
studies in this review. The interpretation of content was a shared communicative device,
depictions often bore emotional loads, were idiosyncratic and did not translate to
universal characteristics.
Observable characteristics in artwork do indicate psychiatric status, whatever the
orientation of the therapist or the psychiatric status of the patient, but there is no
agreement on differentiation, definition of terms or typical diagnostic characteristics.
Systematic research which differentiates between content and form would further this
investigation and test premises which are expressed as knowledge in the literature; no
study used formal characteristics alone in this review.
Case studies are the traditional and best known method of reporting therapy and
Chapter One describes how this type of research is still recommended by prominent
writers and the weaknesses of this approach. The authors are unable to even describe the
paintings, as the problem of standardising terminology, identifying and describing changes
in observable form or in content has not been successfully addressed. The usual method
has been to print sample paintings from which it is intuited which elements represent the
improvement of the patient. The lack of established psychopathological links means that
the case study method does not fulfil the crucial point discussed, how psychopathology
is expressed in artwork. This is a very poor method of assessment.
86