- Email: [email protected]
“A coat of many colors”
The Arts in Psychotherapy 36 (2009) 154–160
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
The Arts in Psychotherapy
“A coat of many colors” Towards an integrative multilayered model of art therapy Ephrat Huss, MA ∗ Department of Social Work and Creative Tools for Social Workers, Ben Gurion University, Israel
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Keywords: Art Therapy theory Integrative psychology Ecological theories of psychology Teaching Art Therapy
a b s t r a c t This paper describes a theoretical model for conceptualizing art therapy through an integrative multilayered prism that ecologically “layers” dynamic, humanistic, systemic, and social understandings of art, therapy, and people. The result is a systemic but multifaceted model for the teaching of art therapy and the implementation of its theory. The “depth” of art therapy is the multifaceted character of art that enables multiple interpretations simultaneously, concurrent with the eclectic and complex realities of today’s clients. This paper presents a theoretical model and also demonstrates different systems of its application. © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Introduction Art therapy is a highly effective therapeutic medium that can contribute “hands on” skills to therapists, educators, nurses, psychologists, and psychiatrists. However, art therapists constantly struggle with the theoretical base of art therapy. Each theoretical prism on its own seems to reduce other elements of the art: for example, when it is used as a projective tool, it loses the value of the process and of the context of art making (Brooke, 1996; Kacen & Lev-Wiesel, 2002, Koppitz, 1984), and when it focuses only on process, it loses the value of an analytical and projective theory (McNiff, 1992; Moon, 2002). In order to overcome this, we end up moving haphazardly between dynamic, humanistic, and systemic outlooks, or we give up completely on theory and becomes a “recipe book” of cute tools or a new age general revival of creativity as “good for one.” On occasion, we experience the art and the words as fragmenting, or even competing, along the “art as therapy”–“art as psychotherapy” continuum (Allen, 1995; McNiff, 1992). This theoretical struggle of us the art therapists is apparent in art therapy literature, which is divided into books based on working with different populations (for example, Hiscox & Calisch, 1998; Kaye & Blee 1997), books structured around a single theory, be it biological, or humanistic, or feminist (for example, Hogan, 2003; Silverstone, 1993), and those that present multiple theories in separate chapters (for example, Rubin, 1999). Additional examples are addressed in the literature survey below.
∗ Tel.: +972 86900695. E-mail address: [email protected]. 0197-4556/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.aip.2009.01.003
The aim of this paper is not to downplay the huge advances and importance of the different strands of art therapy, but to suggest that such a fragmentation of theory and population, while creating diversity and richness, also complicates the forming of a unified theoretical base: should I, as an art therapy educator teach endless different theories, creating a superficial tool box, or stick religiously to the most fashionable one at present, creating depth but reducing the art’s potential? Should I focus on fine art lessons and on aesthetic intuition, or should I teach therapy techniques, alongside which the art is juxtaposed? Or should I teach how art affects the brain? And how can all this be done in depth? More specifically, what methods, if any, of analyzing the art should be taught? How does one create a student capable of taking a critical stand visà-vis his/her profession and developing it further theoretically? If we refuse to address the above complexities theoretically, then art therapy can turn into a superficial “fit for all” activity or be limited to a single psychological theory. Neither option, however, seems to encompass the richness, effectiveness, and wholeness that art therapy can provide. This paper proposes the authors’ attempts at a solution to the above problem, through trying to create an integrative theoretical base. Using an ecological model, an individual is understood as comprising the interaction between temperamental, childhood, family, communal, cultural, and national realities that ripple out in ever-enlarging circles, as in the ecological model of Bronfienbrenner (2004). Each circle leans toward a different theory, from dynamic, to humanistic, to systemic, to socially critical. The layering of different theoretical positions – like different shades of cellophane paper, one on top of the other – enables the creation of an individual “mix” of a new, indefinable color, deeper and more dynamic than any single shade of cellophane. This concept represents the author’s understanding of the real depth of art therapy, which, like art itself, has
E. Huss / The Arts in Psychotherapy 36 (2009) 154–160
the flexibility to encompass and to contain different prisms of personality within a single page or art process. This provides a complex and encompassing narrative of an individual as both the product of her unique combination of circumstances and also as having inherent agency and creativity to counteract them. This frames the above problem as the solution based on the assumption that art’s inherent ability to layer multifaceted levels of meaning – its multiplicity – makes it a medium capable of encompassing multiple levels of theory simultaneously. Likewise, the art medium is particularly relevant to the postmodern, eclectic era we live in, where problems cannot be explained using one “grand narrative.” People’s problems are analyzed and understood by concurrently drawing on a variety of different theories that derive from the interaction between the constantly shifting, world. The literature survey that follows elaborates the points made above, after which examples are offered as to how this theoretical stand can be implemented in art therapy practice, both with regard to different populations and within art therapy teaching.
Literature survey The complex, triangular relationship between client, therapist, and artwork is the differentiating factor between art therapy and verbal therapy. Different interpretations of this triangular relationship have evolved, each stressing different elements of art as the therapy (Rubin, 2001). As such, the literature examines the methods and searches for the meanings that the arts give to therapy, but the current literature does not create an integrated, theoretical whole. The following is a non-exhaustive sample of some of the central, theoretical approaches used in art therapy that are incorporated in this paper. Art therapy through the dynamic prism focuses on the patients’ transference relationship with the art and on the art as an additional way to access unconscious and archetypal contents and the projective relationship (Brook, 1996; Dalley, Gabrielle, & Terry, 1993; Furth, 1993; Neurenberg, 1966; Rubin, 1999; Schaverien, 1992). More current dynamic approaches, based on Winnicott’s transitional space (Winnicott, 1958), address the art as an expression of the inter-subjective spaces created between therapist and client (Skaife, 2001). The creative activity that occurs between art therapist and client on the art page can be seen as mirroring the transitional space between mother and child according to dynamic theories: A development of the above is the concept of art as projective, as in the use of diagnostic tests in art therapy (Brooke, 1996; De Lio, 1973; Goodnow, 1977; Silver, 1983). Art through a dynamic lens is thus understood primarily as a regressive, universal, and projective language, analyzed by psychological meta-theory, and as such, it is seen as connected to fantasy and to desire (Rose, 1988). The dynamic approach, however, can be based on meta-theories of man that are culturally invalid, and that reduce art to a projective element, neglecting its interactive and social realities. The humanistic prism, in comparison, sees the creative engagement in art’s reflective, expressive, and integrative processes as the focus of art therapy, enhancing emotional and cognitive insight and development and promoting health. Betinsky stresses phenomenological interaction with the art product (Betinsky, 1995). McNiff suggest that the arts are a type of “medicine,” that works independently of the therapeutic relationship (McNiff, 1992). Within this theoretical framework, the art is understood by the client with the help of the therapist, whose role is that of the catalyst and witness of this reflective process (Allen, 1995; Devi, 1984; Moon, 2002). Gestalt, narrative, and developmental theories of art therapy; (Carlson, 1997; Rhyne, 1996; Riley, 1997) all incorporate the arts within this humanistic perspective of man as the creative fixer of his own life. However, the limitation of this perspective is its lack
155
of both unconscious and also social and cultural parts of the client’s reality. The systemic prism is concerned with changing relationships and the roles within social systems as catalysts for personal change. The arts are used to enhance communication within the system, to distance conflicts, to foster reflection and communication, and to help one experience the symbolic changes of roles (Riley & Malchiodi, 1994). The focus here is on art as a process. A drawback of this position is its failure to enable individual reflection, or its underlying assumption that “instant” solutions are possible merely by changing the experience in the present. The community or social prism focuses on the ability of art to define a group’s identity on a more encompassing level, to humanize institutions, and to provide the unheard minority groups, which constitute the majority of art therapy clientele, with a voice. This theoretical stand assumes that people’s problems are often the result of social, financial, and cultural realities rather than the reflection of a personal or pathological disorder (Campanelli, 1991; Campbell, 1999; Dosmantes-Beaudry, 1999; Hiscox & Calisch, 1998; Huss & Cwikel, 2005). The aim here is not to elucidate a single, exclusive meaning of the art, but to understand the discourses that it presents (Dokter, 1998; Hogan, 1997; Liebman, 1996). The social and community orientations, however, do not discern individual experience and agency, or individual difference, within the social context. The above theories assume different uses of the same art process, product, and discussion, either understanding art as a projective, diagnostic tool that can be “decoded,” or understanding art as a personal form of self-expression that can be explained only by the creator, either claiming that art does not need to be “understood” but rather experienced, or understanding art that is a social and political comment that needs to be contextualized within its social reality. We see that each stands alone, by definition, omits elements found in the others, and reduces the potential of therapeutic insights that the arts can provide when all of these levels are layered systematically as in an ecological perspective that moves from the individual to society (Kvale, 1992). This differs from a postmodern stand that sees man’s multiple identity as fragmented into a haphazard string of “identities,” due to an incoherent social reality (Canclini, 1996; Hermans & Kempen, 1998). While the postmodern stand may be true politically, it is hard to apply within the framework of therapy. For therapists, in contrast to philosophers, the ecological model seems more helpful (Bronfienbrenner, 2004; Engle, 1977) as it provides a coherent “map” of man that can be utilized systematically while still accounting for all the elements of a complex identity. As Smith states: “It is always possible to locate individual agency without submitting to either extreme interpretations of Foucault’s views of power as disembodied, or to naïve formulations of individualism. . .” (Smith, 2002, p. 34). This paper is built on the premise, as stated, that art is a medium that enables the multifaceted, hybrid, or fragmented elements of modern identity to be held together within a single creation. Indeed, Lippard, an art critic, declared, “. . . Art is able to contain. . . hybrid and emotionally complex stories derived from both tradition and experience, old-new stories, challenge the pervasive ‘master narratives’ that would contain them. . . It has become clear that the hybrid is one of the most authentic creative expressions in the United States” (Lippard, 1990, p. 57). The visual form’s many-sidedness can help explain the authenticity of the hybrids (Devi, 1984). Arnhiem (1996) and Lowenfeld and Brittain (1987) define symbolic language as simultaneously internally and externally focused, cognitive and emotional, and communicating with the self and with the environment. Observing a picture (either by the creator or others) and talking about it creates additional dualities, as it is both a reflective and an expressive
156
E. Huss / The Arts in Psychotherapy 36 (2009) 154–160
activity, just like making art (Eisner, 1997; Pink, 2001). Denzin and Lincoln (1988) describe experiential forms of self-expression within research as going “inwards and outwards, backwards and forwards,” creating a statement that cannot be reduced to one meaning. Sava and Nuutinen (2003) define the complex relationship between drawing and words as creating “. . . a field of many understandings, creating a third thing which is sensory, multi-interpretive, intuitive, ever-changing, and avoiding the final seal of truth” (p. 532). Sullivan (2002), an arts-based researcher, uses a rope metaphor to describe the complex, multilayered interaction of the artistic form: each element of the art – process, product, and context – is a part of an intertwined rope that forms the art speech act. Taken together, the points made above reveal the ability of the arts to simultaneously encompass different theoretical understandings, making art an ideal medium for expressing an eclectic understanding of people and their problems (Barone, 2003). In practice, art therapists often intuitively integrate these different prisms. For example, while using dynamic theories, Kramer also stresses the cultural socializing and ego-enhancing activity of art (Kramer, 1971, 2000). Betensky claims a phenomenological approach but assumes unconscious meanings within the art (Betinsky, 1995). Malchiodi approaches child art therapy from a complex, ecological perspective (Malchiodi, 1998), and Riley and Malchiodi specifically claim to integrate dynamic, narrative, and systemic elements (Riley & Malchiodi, 1994). Although the authors cited in the above examples do, in fact, combine different prisms, the aim of this paper is to demonstrate how these different layers of meaning within art can be systematically utilized within art therapy. In the next section I describe various methods of tailoring this multilayered analysis to the needs of different population groups. The multilayered theory: examples of its application While this paper is theoretical rather than empirical, the following examples, both invented and extracted from case work and from teaching, aim to show the different ways in which the above theory can be applied. The identifying features of the examples presented have been eliminated, and the clients whose cases form the basis of the examples have signed consent forms stating that they agree to be included in this paper. It is important to emphasize that these examples do not represent full case studies, but rather, they show how the above theory can be applied in different ways and in different situations. Each example will focus on a particular metaphor or work of art. Example 1—working linearly from the dynamic to the social: Joseph’s coat of many colors The first example is a theoretical example based on the character of Joseph from the Bible (Genesis, 37.3). At 17 years of age, Joseph is 1 of 12 brothers, 10 of whom are his half-brothers born to 4 different mothers. (Joseph’s own mother, Rachel, died giving birth to a younger brother.) He is his father’s favorite son and, consequently, his brothers’ most hated sibling. His most treasured possession is a colored coat, a gift from his father. Joseph has dreams that seem to indicate that he is destined for greatness, and he exacerbates his problematic position in the family by frequently repeating these to his brothers. He arrives at art therapy feeling confused and lonely, caught up in the conflict between his father’s love and his brothers’ hate. Looking through the prism of dynamic therapy, the art therapist will understand the cause of Joseph’s suffering as stemming from his early childhood experiences, particularly the death of his mother at a young age, and his narcissistic compensation. She will interpret this and bring it into Joseph’s consciousness by analyzing
Fig. 1.
the transferred relationships and the unconscious meanings of the coat and of symbols in his dreams, maybe encouraging him to draw them (the sun and moon as his parents, for example). The colored coat can be understood as a transitional object, as a metaphor for his narcissistic compensation, and this need will also be expressed in the transference to the therapist. Within the treatment framework, the coat is used as an additional path to access unconscious material (including archetypes) and as an additional site for transference. The humanistic art therapy prism will add the focus of Joseph’s developmental challenges in the present—as a young man trying to define his specific “colors” in the context of his childhood and present relationships. Here, the coat can be understood as an expression of Joseph’s creative and reflective individuality, and it can be used to help him integrate his identity and to find out what “color” he really is. Incorporating the next interactive ecological plane, the prism of systemic art therapy, the therapist can help access the siblings’ experience of their father’s favoritism toward Joseph, and art could be used both as a medium for expressing these roles and as an avenue for changing them—for instance, via each son’s creation of a different coat of his own colors. The mourning of the mother and the pattern of filial favoritism can be worked through in terms of past family patterns (Isaac/Ishmael; Jacob/Esau), with the coat of many colors functioning as the organizing metaphor of the family. From the social and cultural prisms, the roles of multiple mothers and of one brother being chosen to assume the father-role must be understood as the accepted frame for a collective family and not as a problem in itself. The role of an embroidered coat of many colors as a clear sign of dominance within the family must be understood in terms of this social context, which can be explained by the family itself. The above example shows that the therapist can systematically integrate theories that encompass the different ecological circles of one’s life to create a rounded understanding of “Joseph’s coat and problems,” which enables a repertoire of art interventions or skills, each firmly based within its theoretical stand, but all working together, as exemplified in the following diagram that is based on Bronfienbrenner’s ecological circles (2004) from the individual to the group ecological social circles (Fig. 1). Systematically working through the different prisms, from the inside out (from the individual to the social), can, over time, help create an intervention program and can help the therapist formu-
E. Huss / The Arts in Psychotherapy 36 (2009) 154–160
late an assessment system that “checks” these different levels of understandings to see which seems most “urgent.” For example, if Joseph’s brothers are, at this point, just contemplating throwing him into the pit, then it would make sense to start from a family intervention! The systematic working through of the different ecological levels is often undertaken when working with children, as in the next example involving a kibbutz child who was lonely and withdrawn. Example 2—the lonely wolf-child in an ever-changing jungle Although initially Oren’s parents refused family therapy, they eventually acquiesced. Members of a kibbutz in Israel, Oren and his parents were dealing with the internal turmoil brought on by a variety of social issues, not the least of which were the ideological upheaval in the kibbutz movement and the indirect effect of the Holocaust on their family. One of Oren’s first pictures was of a wolf looking from afar at a father wolf in the forest. The first, dynamic stage of the intervention interpreted this picture and behavior in terms of basic trust and of an oedipal relationship with the daunting “father wolf.” Projections onto the therapist and the elaboration of the themes in the art, such as the difficulty to trust, were developed and worked through. After about 6 months, the “humanistic” orientation was implemented, in which the boy addressed issues of self-esteem and self-acceptance by examining the different “animals” that lived within himself in addition to the wolf, such as a cuddly teddy bear, among others. These characters were drawn and dramatized, and this stage continued for about 3 months. The next systemic stage was to invite the family to one of his sessions. Themes of the lonely wolf were observed, explained, and examined in the family’s overall genogram in relation to parent child relationships. In an attempt to correct the patterns of disengagement within the family, the parents continued in couple therapy. In terms of a cultural and social prism, the influence of the Holocaust as the place where trust was broken in the family’s direct background was examined, as was the more recent break-up of the collective ideals within the kibbutz movement, which effectively returned children to sleep at home and forced their families to deal with issues of intimacy (the children moved into their family homes instead of living in communal children’s homes). The “lonely wolf” in this context was understood not as oedipal, but as a metaphor for the grandparents survival mechanisms. On a cultural level, being “intimate” in an exclusive relationship and being “alone” ran counter to the social ethics of the kibbutz. In this cultural context, the child’s isolation was experienced as a deep failure by his parents. The last intervention was the inclusion in the art sessions of a few potential friends who together created a “jungle” and animals. At this stage interventions entailed the reframing and monitoring of the roles that the boy took in relation to the other children. The boy’s insights were integrated into concrete social skills through group art work, that helped him interact with other children. This continued for 2 months. Each consecutive stand enabled different aspects of the “lonely wolf” picture or metaphor to be examined and integrated. As stated, this type of ecological intervention is normative when working with children, who are understood to be dependent on both past and present systems. All the theories do not need to be used in the intervention, although looking through the different prisms – e.g., the theoretical case of Joseph – enables a rigorous and systemic understanding of the problem at hand, as expressed through the artwork and as expressed in the following diagram, that outlines the theories as modular elements, to be “chained together” as needed (Fig. 2).
157
Fig. 2.
Another method of including all the prisms in an analysis is using them simultaneously rather than consecutively, as a way of maintaining a tentative stand toward a picture. Here, each “understanding” of the art is used to deconstruct other understandings or to hold a tentative stand, appropriate when working with people from different cultural backgrounds who may not understand what the therapist understands from the picture. The following example illustrates this. Example 3—an intercultural encounter In a welfare support group of impoverished Bedouin women (an indigenous population in Israel), one young woman drew a black circle and gazed at it. She could not find the words to define what she meant by the black circle she had drawn. There was no way for the Jewish Israeli researcher” to “enter” this picture until the artist explained it. From a dynamic or “diagnostic” perspective, the art therapist could define the empty black circle, removed from the context of its creator, as an expression of depression, emptiness, and lack of trust in others. However, later in the discussion, the woman’s friend who was sitting next to her, explained, “I think you are drawing that you feel closed in a circle you can’t get out of—there are so many people in your small house.” The creator of the black circle nodded in agreement. From a humanistic stand, she is describing an experience of confinement and lack of content. From a family level, the woman can be understood as describing her experience of a lack of personal space within the family, while on a societal level, she is describing the limitations of poverty and of gender roles by defining these things in the group space. The second woman “entered” her neighbor’s picture and explained it, creating a group consensus of the experience of small, crowded living quarters and giving “voice” to the individual woman’s symbol of a shared reality, thus creating a socially critical statement. The black circle, then, can encompass a spectrum of understandings of the woman’s issues. It can simultaneously be understood as an expression of inherent depression and as an expression of a familial or political reality. Similarly, in terms of the relationship with the therapist, the “closed” element of the black circle can be understood dynamically as a resistance to intimacy, and, socially–politically, as resistance to allowing a woman from an external and dominant culture to define the picture or “enter” the closed circle. Compared to the first two examples, which utilized different stands over time within the therapeutic intervention, the above example shows how all the different theoretical levels of understanding can be used to elucidate the picture within a single, simultaneous gaze that enables the expression – but also deconstruction or re-interpretation – of each theoretical stand as absolute. This initially tentative position enables a culturally sensitive stand toward the art of people from non-Western cultures that can then continue, using the most relevant interpretation for the woman herself, once a starting point for intervention (i.e., treatment for depression, political activism, or family intervention) has been decided upon. This simultaneous utilization of all the layers of the multilayered prisms that deconstruct each other is shown graphically as the following intertwining of different colors that do not enable a single stand (or color) to override any other stand (Fig. 3).
158
E. Huss / The Arts in Psychotherapy 36 (2009) 154–160
Fig. 3.
Example 4—group art therapy: combining dynamic, systemic, and social elements within group work Children from violent homes often hide that part of their realities, and thus have secrets that they guard on different levels, both psychological and within their social realities. For example, when such children draw their houses, their artwork can be understood as containing dynamic “secrets” from the subconscious – as images of the children – but also as houses containing “real” secrets drawn from the children’s difficult family lives. Both of these levels of content can be distanced, hidden, expressed, and worked through in the group indirectly – from within the contents of the art – while maintaining or gradually dismantling the children’s privacy and defenses as needed. In addition to the above dual understanding of the houses, the “building” of the house together, out of boxes or on large pages, is also addressed systemically as a place to express the coping and interactive mechanisms of the children within the group process, such as how they cope with their own anger and how they learn to trust others (i.e., create a “good enough” house together, learn to express anger non-aggressively). The houses can thus be seen as dynamic, humanistic, systemic, or social systems of therapy, with the relative dominance of each level changing over time and across children, but with all levels, in fact, taking part. By definition, groups are multifaceted experiences, but the inclusion of art, as described above, creates a concrete container for these different levels that are all enacted simultaneously, as depicted in the following diagram, that shows how each element exists independently within it’s own shape, but is seen as a simultaneous geshtalt, with the different shapes interacting dynamically among each other (Fig. 4). Example 5—Shira, an art therapy student This paper started with the question of how to teach art therapy, and so the last example utilizes an art therapy student’s metaphorical “queen” image that is used as a didactic tool to teach the above multilayering theoretical model. The student drew a picture of a king and a queen, and stated, “I drew a dream I have often of a king and queen, with long royal cloaks and with long flowing hair, and then it turned out
Fig. 4.
the king and queen are my ex-boyfriend with his new girlfriend, who he’s going to marry. . .” The above image was then worked through by the student reflectively on all of the different levels during her art therapy classes. Each lesson began by introducing the theory behind one of the theoretical levels and the next lesson was devoted to examining and to working with the picture through the lens of that theoretical prism, including analyzing the meaning of the picture and what that meant for the roles of therapist and of art intervention. In this case, the analysis started dynamically from the oedipal relationship with her mother as “queen” and the transference of this relationship to the “queen” teacher that she both resists and admires. In the following lesson, the student examined the image from a humanistic standpoint. She explored issues of self-esteem and entered a “dialogue” with the parts of her that felt that they did not deserve to be a “queen.” The next lesson explored, through a genogram, the women in her family for themes of being a “queen.” The lesson after that addressed, within a group format, her interaction in the lesson in terms of taking a “queen role” within the here and now of the group. The last lesson around the queen metaphor explored the cultural and social messages that influenced the queen symbol. The student also explored the pioneering Zionist “anti-queen” culture in which she was brought up as a culture demanding tough women rather than queens. Focusing on the same image or issue through the various theoretical prisms showed the multifaceted ways of approaching the “queen” theme. As such, it maintained its personal, symbolic meaning, but it was contextualized on many levels. This tactic successfully integrates the dynamic and the systemic or contextualized approaches of therapy around a single symbol, illustrating the complex interaction between the micro world of the client and the macro cultural and societal trends that affect all of us. Thus, the art therapist must constantly check, “shifting” her/his position in relation to the art within the art therapy. This adds ecological depth to the symbol of “queen” and facilitates a repertoire of interventions based on the different theoretical stands, deepening and intensifying the symbol. The student then had to write a paper summarizing and incorporating all of these elements. Her next assignment was to analyze the artworks of one of her placement cases using the same technique. The student thus internalized a complex, multifaceted approach to working with images. Through working with
E. Huss / The Arts in Psychotherapy 36 (2009) 154–160
159
Fig. 5. Table of figures for Joseph’s coat of many colors.
this model a few times in different contexts, she will gradually learn how to smoothly and quickly “shift gear” from one prism to another within therapy, eventually developing the ability to work with them simultaneously. This is the craft of art therapy that can be utilized in different combinations, some of which have been demonstrated in this article.
Discussion and summary The first example shows how Joseph’s story can be understood, or diagnosed, from multiple perspectives to gain more insight before deciding on an intervention. For example, as stated above, if Joseph’s brothers were just about to throw him into the pit, then it would be best to start with a family intervention, but other elements could be incorporated later. The second example shows how the different layers can be systematically worked through to equip the child with the tools to develop insight and also to create a more supportive family system for him. The case of the Bedouin women in the third example suggests using a tentative stand, by applying all of the layers simultaneously to avoid culturally based misunderstandings. The fourth example, from group art therapy, shows how the different layers of unconscious, hidden material, and the creativity, integration, and innovation inherent in creating art, all combine within the group space, with the children leading the most dominant layer at that particular moment, although that balance can shift at any time. The last example showed how this model can be taught systematically, creating a theoretical base as a foundation for different skills. The inclusion of all the layers in a simultaneous but multilayered perspective creates an integrative or ecological base from within which to conceptualize problems, therapy, and art (Huss, 2007a,b; Huss & Cwikel, 2005). Indeed, one theoretical prism alone cannot purport to analyze in enough depth the complex realities of modern society. As Atkinson (2005) states, “We should not seek to understand social life in terms of just one analytic strategy or just one cultural form, analysis should reflect all the forms of social life” (Atkinson, 2005, p. 35). However, this theoretical model’s all-inclusiveness is also its potential limitation, as the inundation with many different therapeutic prisms creates the danger of teaching each one superficially. The challenge, therefore, is to combine them without “flooding” the situation and to create a systematic method for working with them. This paper’s aim is not to downplay the importance of each individual model, but rather to suggest a model that demonstrates several ways of orchestrating the different theoretical levels into an integrative base, so that the therapist learns how and when to skillfully add another theoretical, practice-based layer—just as in a work of art specific colors can be the central theme of a painting, while small touches of other colors contribute to the overall effect. In suggesting the integrative model, an additional claim is made that the approaches to understanding art can be systematically layered to “escort” the client through her/his object relations, family system, unique creativity and personality, and finally through his socially constructed reality. The art therapist can analyze uncon-
scious elements, encourage reflective and creative elements, and use the arts to understand and transform relationships and to express a social reality. She/he (the art therapist) can bring both her/his psychologically and socially contextualized understandings to the therapy. The dialogue between all these different perspectives constitutes, via the meeting between the art therapist and the client within the transitional space of the therapeutic encounter, the potential for communication that understands, integrates, challenges, and transforms. This complex construction of different theoretical prisms is seen as the depth element of art therapy, where the art can incorporate and also integrate within one symbol, or one page, the interaction between temperament, childhood experiences, personality, family roles, and cultural and social contexts. By integrating the theoretical stands, the inherent creativity of the art process is allowed to express itself to the full, as the art therapist, like a painter, skillfully utilizes and controls the theories or colors in her/his professional “coat of many colors” by layering them within the transitional space of the relationship and of the art interaction. The different ways of combining the different prisms, are outlined graphically below, through combining all four different diagrams in Fig. 5.
Acknowledgement Thanks to my student Ms. Rashi Zalut, Lesley University for providing the idea of working with Joseph’s coat of many colors.
References Allen, P. (1995). Art is a way of knowing: A guide to self-knowledge and spiritual fulfillment through creativity. Boston: Shambhala. Arnhiem, R. (1996). The split and the structure: Twenty-eight essays. Berkeley: University of California Press. Atkinson, P. (2005). Qualitative research: Unity and diversity. Forum of Qualitative Social Research, 6(3), 74–90. Barone, T. (2003). Challenging the educational imaginary. Qualitative Inquiry, 9(2), 202–218. Betinsky, M. (1995). What do you see? Phenomenology of therapeutic art experience. U.K.: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Bronfienbrenner, U. (2004). Making human beings human; Bio-ecological perspectives. New York: Sage. Brooke, S. (1996). A guide to art therapy assessments. USA: Charles Thomas. Campanelli, M. (1991). Art therapy and ethnocultural issues. The American Journal of Art Therapy, 30(2), 34–36. Campbell, J. (Ed.). (1999). Art therapy, race and culture. Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Canclini, N. (1996). Strategies for entering and leaving modernity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Carlson, T. D. (1997). Using art in narrative therapy: Enhancing therapeutic possibilities. American Journal of Family Therapy, 25(3). Dalley, T., Gabrielle, R., & Terry, K. (1993). Three voices of art therapy: Image, client, therapist. London: Routledge. De Lio, A. (1973). Children’s drawings as diagnostic aids. New York: Bruner and Mazel. Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1988). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials. London: Sage Publications. Devi, S. (1984). Symbolization and creativity. New York: International University Press. Dokter, D. (Ed.). (1998). Arts therapists, refugees and migrants: Reaching across borders. UK: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Dosmantes-Beaudry, M. (1999). Divergent cultural self-construals: Implications for the practice of dance-movement therapy. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 26(4), 225–231.
160
E. Huss / The Arts in Psychotherapy 36 (2009) 154–160
Eisner, E. (1997). The promises and perils of alternative forms of data representation. Educational Researcher, 26(6), 4–20. Engle, G. (1977). The need for a new medial model, a challenge for biomedical models. Science, 196, 129–136. Furth, G. (1993). The secret world of drawings: A Jungian approach to healing through art. Toronto: Inner City Books. Goodnow, J. (1977). Children’s drawing. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Hermans, H. J. M., & Kempen, H. J. G. (1998). Moving cultures: The perilous problems of cultural dichotomies in a globalizing society. American Psychologist, 53(10), 1111–1120. Hiscox, A. R., & Calisch, A. C. (Eds.). (1998). Tapestry of cultural issues in art therapy. UK: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Hogan, S. (1997). Feminist approaches to art therapy. London, New York: Routledge. Hogan, S. (2003). Gender issues in art therapy. UK: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Huss, E., & Cwikel, J. (2005). Researching creations: Applying arts-based research to Bedouin women’s drawings. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 4(4), 1–16. Huss, E. (2007a). Houses, swimming pools, and thin blonde women: Arts-based research through a critical lens with impoverished Bedouin women. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(7), 960–988. Huss, E. (2007b). Symbolic spaces: Marginalized Bedouin women’s art as selfexpression. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 47(3), 306–319. Kacen, L., & Lev-Wiesel, R. (Eds.). (2002). Group work in a multicultural society. Tel Aviv: Cherikover Publications. Kaye, C., & Blee, T. (Eds.). (1997). The arts in healthcare: A pallette of possibilities. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Koppitz, E. (1984). Psychological evaluation of human figure drawings by middle school pupils. NewYork: Grune and Stratton. Kramer, E. (1971). Art as therapy with children. New York: Schocken Books. Kramer, E. (2000). Art as therapy: Collected papers. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Kvale, S. (Ed.). (1992). Psychology and postmodernism. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Liebman, M. (Ed.). (1996). Arts approaches to conflict. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Lippard, L. (1990). Mixed blessings: New art in a multicultural America. US: Pantheon. Lowenfeld, V., & Brittain, W. (1987). Creative and mental growth. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company. Malchiodi, C. A. (1998). Understanding children’s drawings. New York: The Guilford Press. McNiff, S. (1992). Art as medicine. Boston: Shambhala Press. Moon, H. (2002). Studio art therapy. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Neurenberg, M. (1966). Dynamically oriented art therapy. New York: Gune and Stratton. Pink, S. (2001). Doing visual ethnography. London: Sage. Riley, S. (1997). Social constructivism: The narrative approach and clinical art therapy. Journal of the American Art Therapy Association, 14(4), 282–284. Riley, S., & Malchiodi, C. A. (1994). Integrative approaches to family art therapy. Chicago: Mangolia Street Publishers. Rose, G. (1988). Visual methodologies. London: Sage. Rubin, J. (1999). Art therapy, an introduction. Philadelphia: Bruner and Mazel. Rubin, J. (2001). Approaches to art therapy. Philadelphia: Brunner and Mazel. Rhyne, S. (1996). Gestalt art therapy. New York: Jessika Kingsley. Sava, I., & Nuutinen, K. (2003). At the meeting place of word and picture: Between art and inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 9(4), 515–535. Schaverien, J. (1992). The revealing image: Analytical art psychotherapy in theory and in practice. London: Routledge. Silver, D. (1983). Silver drawing test of cognition and emotion. Sarasota: Ablin Press. Silverstone, L. (1993). Art therapy: The person-centered way. Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Skaife, S. (2001). Making visible: Art therapy and inter-subjectivity. Inscape, (2), 40–50. Smith, D. (2002). Institutional ethnography. In T. May (Ed.), Qualitative research in action (pp. 17–53). London: Sage Publications. Sullivan, G. (2002). Artistic thinking as transcognitive practice: A reconciliation of the process-product dichotomy. Visual Arts Research, 22(1), 2–17. Winnicott, D. (1958). Collected papers: Through pediatrics to psychoanalysis. London: Tavistock Publications.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
The Arts in Psychotherapy
“A coat of many colors” Towards an integrative multilayered model of art therapy Ephrat Huss, MA ∗ Department of Social Work and Creative Tools for Social Workers, Ben Gurion University, Israel
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Keywords: Art Therapy theory Integrative psychology Ecological theories of psychology Teaching Art Therapy
a b s t r a c t This paper describes a theoretical model for conceptualizing art therapy through an integrative multilayered prism that ecologically “layers” dynamic, humanistic, systemic, and social understandings of art, therapy, and people. The result is a systemic but multifaceted model for the teaching of art therapy and the implementation of its theory. The “depth” of art therapy is the multifaceted character of art that enables multiple interpretations simultaneously, concurrent with the eclectic and complex realities of today’s clients. This paper presents a theoretical model and also demonstrates different systems of its application. © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Introduction Art therapy is a highly effective therapeutic medium that can contribute “hands on” skills to therapists, educators, nurses, psychologists, and psychiatrists. However, art therapists constantly struggle with the theoretical base of art therapy. Each theoretical prism on its own seems to reduce other elements of the art: for example, when it is used as a projective tool, it loses the value of the process and of the context of art making (Brooke, 1996; Kacen & Lev-Wiesel, 2002, Koppitz, 1984), and when it focuses only on process, it loses the value of an analytical and projective theory (McNiff, 1992; Moon, 2002). In order to overcome this, we end up moving haphazardly between dynamic, humanistic, and systemic outlooks, or we give up completely on theory and becomes a “recipe book” of cute tools or a new age general revival of creativity as “good for one.” On occasion, we experience the art and the words as fragmenting, or even competing, along the “art as therapy”–“art as psychotherapy” continuum (Allen, 1995; McNiff, 1992). This theoretical struggle of us the art therapists is apparent in art therapy literature, which is divided into books based on working with different populations (for example, Hiscox & Calisch, 1998; Kaye & Blee 1997), books structured around a single theory, be it biological, or humanistic, or feminist (for example, Hogan, 2003; Silverstone, 1993), and those that present multiple theories in separate chapters (for example, Rubin, 1999). Additional examples are addressed in the literature survey below.
∗ Tel.: +972 86900695. E-mail address: [email protected]. 0197-4556/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.aip.2009.01.003
The aim of this paper is not to downplay the huge advances and importance of the different strands of art therapy, but to suggest that such a fragmentation of theory and population, while creating diversity and richness, also complicates the forming of a unified theoretical base: should I, as an art therapy educator teach endless different theories, creating a superficial tool box, or stick religiously to the most fashionable one at present, creating depth but reducing the art’s potential? Should I focus on fine art lessons and on aesthetic intuition, or should I teach therapy techniques, alongside which the art is juxtaposed? Or should I teach how art affects the brain? And how can all this be done in depth? More specifically, what methods, if any, of analyzing the art should be taught? How does one create a student capable of taking a critical stand visà-vis his/her profession and developing it further theoretically? If we refuse to address the above complexities theoretically, then art therapy can turn into a superficial “fit for all” activity or be limited to a single psychological theory. Neither option, however, seems to encompass the richness, effectiveness, and wholeness that art therapy can provide. This paper proposes the authors’ attempts at a solution to the above problem, through trying to create an integrative theoretical base. Using an ecological model, an individual is understood as comprising the interaction between temperamental, childhood, family, communal, cultural, and national realities that ripple out in ever-enlarging circles, as in the ecological model of Bronfienbrenner (2004). Each circle leans toward a different theory, from dynamic, to humanistic, to systemic, to socially critical. The layering of different theoretical positions – like different shades of cellophane paper, one on top of the other – enables the creation of an individual “mix” of a new, indefinable color, deeper and more dynamic than any single shade of cellophane. This concept represents the author’s understanding of the real depth of art therapy, which, like art itself, has
E. Huss / The Arts in Psychotherapy 36 (2009) 154–160
the flexibility to encompass and to contain different prisms of personality within a single page or art process. This provides a complex and encompassing narrative of an individual as both the product of her unique combination of circumstances and also as having inherent agency and creativity to counteract them. This frames the above problem as the solution based on the assumption that art’s inherent ability to layer multifaceted levels of meaning – its multiplicity – makes it a medium capable of encompassing multiple levels of theory simultaneously. Likewise, the art medium is particularly relevant to the postmodern, eclectic era we live in, where problems cannot be explained using one “grand narrative.” People’s problems are analyzed and understood by concurrently drawing on a variety of different theories that derive from the interaction between the constantly shifting, world. The literature survey that follows elaborates the points made above, after which examples are offered as to how this theoretical stand can be implemented in art therapy practice, both with regard to different populations and within art therapy teaching.
Literature survey The complex, triangular relationship between client, therapist, and artwork is the differentiating factor between art therapy and verbal therapy. Different interpretations of this triangular relationship have evolved, each stressing different elements of art as the therapy (Rubin, 2001). As such, the literature examines the methods and searches for the meanings that the arts give to therapy, but the current literature does not create an integrated, theoretical whole. The following is a non-exhaustive sample of some of the central, theoretical approaches used in art therapy that are incorporated in this paper. Art therapy through the dynamic prism focuses on the patients’ transference relationship with the art and on the art as an additional way to access unconscious and archetypal contents and the projective relationship (Brook, 1996; Dalley, Gabrielle, & Terry, 1993; Furth, 1993; Neurenberg, 1966; Rubin, 1999; Schaverien, 1992). More current dynamic approaches, based on Winnicott’s transitional space (Winnicott, 1958), address the art as an expression of the inter-subjective spaces created between therapist and client (Skaife, 2001). The creative activity that occurs between art therapist and client on the art page can be seen as mirroring the transitional space between mother and child according to dynamic theories: A development of the above is the concept of art as projective, as in the use of diagnostic tests in art therapy (Brooke, 1996; De Lio, 1973; Goodnow, 1977; Silver, 1983). Art through a dynamic lens is thus understood primarily as a regressive, universal, and projective language, analyzed by psychological meta-theory, and as such, it is seen as connected to fantasy and to desire (Rose, 1988). The dynamic approach, however, can be based on meta-theories of man that are culturally invalid, and that reduce art to a projective element, neglecting its interactive and social realities. The humanistic prism, in comparison, sees the creative engagement in art’s reflective, expressive, and integrative processes as the focus of art therapy, enhancing emotional and cognitive insight and development and promoting health. Betinsky stresses phenomenological interaction with the art product (Betinsky, 1995). McNiff suggest that the arts are a type of “medicine,” that works independently of the therapeutic relationship (McNiff, 1992). Within this theoretical framework, the art is understood by the client with the help of the therapist, whose role is that of the catalyst and witness of this reflective process (Allen, 1995; Devi, 1984; Moon, 2002). Gestalt, narrative, and developmental theories of art therapy; (Carlson, 1997; Rhyne, 1996; Riley, 1997) all incorporate the arts within this humanistic perspective of man as the creative fixer of his own life. However, the limitation of this perspective is its lack
155
of both unconscious and also social and cultural parts of the client’s reality. The systemic prism is concerned with changing relationships and the roles within social systems as catalysts for personal change. The arts are used to enhance communication within the system, to distance conflicts, to foster reflection and communication, and to help one experience the symbolic changes of roles (Riley & Malchiodi, 1994). The focus here is on art as a process. A drawback of this position is its failure to enable individual reflection, or its underlying assumption that “instant” solutions are possible merely by changing the experience in the present. The community or social prism focuses on the ability of art to define a group’s identity on a more encompassing level, to humanize institutions, and to provide the unheard minority groups, which constitute the majority of art therapy clientele, with a voice. This theoretical stand assumes that people’s problems are often the result of social, financial, and cultural realities rather than the reflection of a personal or pathological disorder (Campanelli, 1991; Campbell, 1999; Dosmantes-Beaudry, 1999; Hiscox & Calisch, 1998; Huss & Cwikel, 2005). The aim here is not to elucidate a single, exclusive meaning of the art, but to understand the discourses that it presents (Dokter, 1998; Hogan, 1997; Liebman, 1996). The social and community orientations, however, do not discern individual experience and agency, or individual difference, within the social context. The above theories assume different uses of the same art process, product, and discussion, either understanding art as a projective, diagnostic tool that can be “decoded,” or understanding art as a personal form of self-expression that can be explained only by the creator, either claiming that art does not need to be “understood” but rather experienced, or understanding art that is a social and political comment that needs to be contextualized within its social reality. We see that each stands alone, by definition, omits elements found in the others, and reduces the potential of therapeutic insights that the arts can provide when all of these levels are layered systematically as in an ecological perspective that moves from the individual to society (Kvale, 1992). This differs from a postmodern stand that sees man’s multiple identity as fragmented into a haphazard string of “identities,” due to an incoherent social reality (Canclini, 1996; Hermans & Kempen, 1998). While the postmodern stand may be true politically, it is hard to apply within the framework of therapy. For therapists, in contrast to philosophers, the ecological model seems more helpful (Bronfienbrenner, 2004; Engle, 1977) as it provides a coherent “map” of man that can be utilized systematically while still accounting for all the elements of a complex identity. As Smith states: “It is always possible to locate individual agency without submitting to either extreme interpretations of Foucault’s views of power as disembodied, or to naïve formulations of individualism. . .” (Smith, 2002, p. 34). This paper is built on the premise, as stated, that art is a medium that enables the multifaceted, hybrid, or fragmented elements of modern identity to be held together within a single creation. Indeed, Lippard, an art critic, declared, “. . . Art is able to contain. . . hybrid and emotionally complex stories derived from both tradition and experience, old-new stories, challenge the pervasive ‘master narratives’ that would contain them. . . It has become clear that the hybrid is one of the most authentic creative expressions in the United States” (Lippard, 1990, p. 57). The visual form’s many-sidedness can help explain the authenticity of the hybrids (Devi, 1984). Arnhiem (1996) and Lowenfeld and Brittain (1987) define symbolic language as simultaneously internally and externally focused, cognitive and emotional, and communicating with the self and with the environment. Observing a picture (either by the creator or others) and talking about it creates additional dualities, as it is both a reflective and an expressive
156
E. Huss / The Arts in Psychotherapy 36 (2009) 154–160
activity, just like making art (Eisner, 1997; Pink, 2001). Denzin and Lincoln (1988) describe experiential forms of self-expression within research as going “inwards and outwards, backwards and forwards,” creating a statement that cannot be reduced to one meaning. Sava and Nuutinen (2003) define the complex relationship between drawing and words as creating “. . . a field of many understandings, creating a third thing which is sensory, multi-interpretive, intuitive, ever-changing, and avoiding the final seal of truth” (p. 532). Sullivan (2002), an arts-based researcher, uses a rope metaphor to describe the complex, multilayered interaction of the artistic form: each element of the art – process, product, and context – is a part of an intertwined rope that forms the art speech act. Taken together, the points made above reveal the ability of the arts to simultaneously encompass different theoretical understandings, making art an ideal medium for expressing an eclectic understanding of people and their problems (Barone, 2003). In practice, art therapists often intuitively integrate these different prisms. For example, while using dynamic theories, Kramer also stresses the cultural socializing and ego-enhancing activity of art (Kramer, 1971, 2000). Betensky claims a phenomenological approach but assumes unconscious meanings within the art (Betinsky, 1995). Malchiodi approaches child art therapy from a complex, ecological perspective (Malchiodi, 1998), and Riley and Malchiodi specifically claim to integrate dynamic, narrative, and systemic elements (Riley & Malchiodi, 1994). Although the authors cited in the above examples do, in fact, combine different prisms, the aim of this paper is to demonstrate how these different layers of meaning within art can be systematically utilized within art therapy. In the next section I describe various methods of tailoring this multilayered analysis to the needs of different population groups. The multilayered theory: examples of its application While this paper is theoretical rather than empirical, the following examples, both invented and extracted from case work and from teaching, aim to show the different ways in which the above theory can be applied. The identifying features of the examples presented have been eliminated, and the clients whose cases form the basis of the examples have signed consent forms stating that they agree to be included in this paper. It is important to emphasize that these examples do not represent full case studies, but rather, they show how the above theory can be applied in different ways and in different situations. Each example will focus on a particular metaphor or work of art. Example 1—working linearly from the dynamic to the social: Joseph’s coat of many colors The first example is a theoretical example based on the character of Joseph from the Bible (Genesis, 37.3). At 17 years of age, Joseph is 1 of 12 brothers, 10 of whom are his half-brothers born to 4 different mothers. (Joseph’s own mother, Rachel, died giving birth to a younger brother.) He is his father’s favorite son and, consequently, his brothers’ most hated sibling. His most treasured possession is a colored coat, a gift from his father. Joseph has dreams that seem to indicate that he is destined for greatness, and he exacerbates his problematic position in the family by frequently repeating these to his brothers. He arrives at art therapy feeling confused and lonely, caught up in the conflict between his father’s love and his brothers’ hate. Looking through the prism of dynamic therapy, the art therapist will understand the cause of Joseph’s suffering as stemming from his early childhood experiences, particularly the death of his mother at a young age, and his narcissistic compensation. She will interpret this and bring it into Joseph’s consciousness by analyzing
Fig. 1.
the transferred relationships and the unconscious meanings of the coat and of symbols in his dreams, maybe encouraging him to draw them (the sun and moon as his parents, for example). The colored coat can be understood as a transitional object, as a metaphor for his narcissistic compensation, and this need will also be expressed in the transference to the therapist. Within the treatment framework, the coat is used as an additional path to access unconscious material (including archetypes) and as an additional site for transference. The humanistic art therapy prism will add the focus of Joseph’s developmental challenges in the present—as a young man trying to define his specific “colors” in the context of his childhood and present relationships. Here, the coat can be understood as an expression of Joseph’s creative and reflective individuality, and it can be used to help him integrate his identity and to find out what “color” he really is. Incorporating the next interactive ecological plane, the prism of systemic art therapy, the therapist can help access the siblings’ experience of their father’s favoritism toward Joseph, and art could be used both as a medium for expressing these roles and as an avenue for changing them—for instance, via each son’s creation of a different coat of his own colors. The mourning of the mother and the pattern of filial favoritism can be worked through in terms of past family patterns (Isaac/Ishmael; Jacob/Esau), with the coat of many colors functioning as the organizing metaphor of the family. From the social and cultural prisms, the roles of multiple mothers and of one brother being chosen to assume the father-role must be understood as the accepted frame for a collective family and not as a problem in itself. The role of an embroidered coat of many colors as a clear sign of dominance within the family must be understood in terms of this social context, which can be explained by the family itself. The above example shows that the therapist can systematically integrate theories that encompass the different ecological circles of one’s life to create a rounded understanding of “Joseph’s coat and problems,” which enables a repertoire of art interventions or skills, each firmly based within its theoretical stand, but all working together, as exemplified in the following diagram that is based on Bronfienbrenner’s ecological circles (2004) from the individual to the group ecological social circles (Fig. 1). Systematically working through the different prisms, from the inside out (from the individual to the social), can, over time, help create an intervention program and can help the therapist formu-
E. Huss / The Arts in Psychotherapy 36 (2009) 154–160
late an assessment system that “checks” these different levels of understandings to see which seems most “urgent.” For example, if Joseph’s brothers are, at this point, just contemplating throwing him into the pit, then it would make sense to start from a family intervention! The systematic working through of the different ecological levels is often undertaken when working with children, as in the next example involving a kibbutz child who was lonely and withdrawn. Example 2—the lonely wolf-child in an ever-changing jungle Although initially Oren’s parents refused family therapy, they eventually acquiesced. Members of a kibbutz in Israel, Oren and his parents were dealing with the internal turmoil brought on by a variety of social issues, not the least of which were the ideological upheaval in the kibbutz movement and the indirect effect of the Holocaust on their family. One of Oren’s first pictures was of a wolf looking from afar at a father wolf in the forest. The first, dynamic stage of the intervention interpreted this picture and behavior in terms of basic trust and of an oedipal relationship with the daunting “father wolf.” Projections onto the therapist and the elaboration of the themes in the art, such as the difficulty to trust, were developed and worked through. After about 6 months, the “humanistic” orientation was implemented, in which the boy addressed issues of self-esteem and self-acceptance by examining the different “animals” that lived within himself in addition to the wolf, such as a cuddly teddy bear, among others. These characters were drawn and dramatized, and this stage continued for about 3 months. The next systemic stage was to invite the family to one of his sessions. Themes of the lonely wolf were observed, explained, and examined in the family’s overall genogram in relation to parent child relationships. In an attempt to correct the patterns of disengagement within the family, the parents continued in couple therapy. In terms of a cultural and social prism, the influence of the Holocaust as the place where trust was broken in the family’s direct background was examined, as was the more recent break-up of the collective ideals within the kibbutz movement, which effectively returned children to sleep at home and forced their families to deal with issues of intimacy (the children moved into their family homes instead of living in communal children’s homes). The “lonely wolf” in this context was understood not as oedipal, but as a metaphor for the grandparents survival mechanisms. On a cultural level, being “intimate” in an exclusive relationship and being “alone” ran counter to the social ethics of the kibbutz. In this cultural context, the child’s isolation was experienced as a deep failure by his parents. The last intervention was the inclusion in the art sessions of a few potential friends who together created a “jungle” and animals. At this stage interventions entailed the reframing and monitoring of the roles that the boy took in relation to the other children. The boy’s insights were integrated into concrete social skills through group art work, that helped him interact with other children. This continued for 2 months. Each consecutive stand enabled different aspects of the “lonely wolf” picture or metaphor to be examined and integrated. As stated, this type of ecological intervention is normative when working with children, who are understood to be dependent on both past and present systems. All the theories do not need to be used in the intervention, although looking through the different prisms – e.g., the theoretical case of Joseph – enables a rigorous and systemic understanding of the problem at hand, as expressed through the artwork and as expressed in the following diagram, that outlines the theories as modular elements, to be “chained together” as needed (Fig. 2).
157
Fig. 2.
Another method of including all the prisms in an analysis is using them simultaneously rather than consecutively, as a way of maintaining a tentative stand toward a picture. Here, each “understanding” of the art is used to deconstruct other understandings or to hold a tentative stand, appropriate when working with people from different cultural backgrounds who may not understand what the therapist understands from the picture. The following example illustrates this. Example 3—an intercultural encounter In a welfare support group of impoverished Bedouin women (an indigenous population in Israel), one young woman drew a black circle and gazed at it. She could not find the words to define what she meant by the black circle she had drawn. There was no way for the Jewish Israeli researcher” to “enter” this picture until the artist explained it. From a dynamic or “diagnostic” perspective, the art therapist could define the empty black circle, removed from the context of its creator, as an expression of depression, emptiness, and lack of trust in others. However, later in the discussion, the woman’s friend who was sitting next to her, explained, “I think you are drawing that you feel closed in a circle you can’t get out of—there are so many people in your small house.” The creator of the black circle nodded in agreement. From a humanistic stand, she is describing an experience of confinement and lack of content. From a family level, the woman can be understood as describing her experience of a lack of personal space within the family, while on a societal level, she is describing the limitations of poverty and of gender roles by defining these things in the group space. The second woman “entered” her neighbor’s picture and explained it, creating a group consensus of the experience of small, crowded living quarters and giving “voice” to the individual woman’s symbol of a shared reality, thus creating a socially critical statement. The black circle, then, can encompass a spectrum of understandings of the woman’s issues. It can simultaneously be understood as an expression of inherent depression and as an expression of a familial or political reality. Similarly, in terms of the relationship with the therapist, the “closed” element of the black circle can be understood dynamically as a resistance to intimacy, and, socially–politically, as resistance to allowing a woman from an external and dominant culture to define the picture or “enter” the closed circle. Compared to the first two examples, which utilized different stands over time within the therapeutic intervention, the above example shows how all the different theoretical levels of understanding can be used to elucidate the picture within a single, simultaneous gaze that enables the expression – but also deconstruction or re-interpretation – of each theoretical stand as absolute. This initially tentative position enables a culturally sensitive stand toward the art of people from non-Western cultures that can then continue, using the most relevant interpretation for the woman herself, once a starting point for intervention (i.e., treatment for depression, political activism, or family intervention) has been decided upon. This simultaneous utilization of all the layers of the multilayered prisms that deconstruct each other is shown graphically as the following intertwining of different colors that do not enable a single stand (or color) to override any other stand (Fig. 3).
158
E. Huss / The Arts in Psychotherapy 36 (2009) 154–160
Fig. 3.
Example 4—group art therapy: combining dynamic, systemic, and social elements within group work Children from violent homes often hide that part of their realities, and thus have secrets that they guard on different levels, both psychological and within their social realities. For example, when such children draw their houses, their artwork can be understood as containing dynamic “secrets” from the subconscious – as images of the children – but also as houses containing “real” secrets drawn from the children’s difficult family lives. Both of these levels of content can be distanced, hidden, expressed, and worked through in the group indirectly – from within the contents of the art – while maintaining or gradually dismantling the children’s privacy and defenses as needed. In addition to the above dual understanding of the houses, the “building” of the house together, out of boxes or on large pages, is also addressed systemically as a place to express the coping and interactive mechanisms of the children within the group process, such as how they cope with their own anger and how they learn to trust others (i.e., create a “good enough” house together, learn to express anger non-aggressively). The houses can thus be seen as dynamic, humanistic, systemic, or social systems of therapy, with the relative dominance of each level changing over time and across children, but with all levels, in fact, taking part. By definition, groups are multifaceted experiences, but the inclusion of art, as described above, creates a concrete container for these different levels that are all enacted simultaneously, as depicted in the following diagram, that shows how each element exists independently within it’s own shape, but is seen as a simultaneous geshtalt, with the different shapes interacting dynamically among each other (Fig. 4). Example 5—Shira, an art therapy student This paper started with the question of how to teach art therapy, and so the last example utilizes an art therapy student’s metaphorical “queen” image that is used as a didactic tool to teach the above multilayering theoretical model. The student drew a picture of a king and a queen, and stated, “I drew a dream I have often of a king and queen, with long royal cloaks and with long flowing hair, and then it turned out
Fig. 4.
the king and queen are my ex-boyfriend with his new girlfriend, who he’s going to marry. . .” The above image was then worked through by the student reflectively on all of the different levels during her art therapy classes. Each lesson began by introducing the theory behind one of the theoretical levels and the next lesson was devoted to examining and to working with the picture through the lens of that theoretical prism, including analyzing the meaning of the picture and what that meant for the roles of therapist and of art intervention. In this case, the analysis started dynamically from the oedipal relationship with her mother as “queen” and the transference of this relationship to the “queen” teacher that she both resists and admires. In the following lesson, the student examined the image from a humanistic standpoint. She explored issues of self-esteem and entered a “dialogue” with the parts of her that felt that they did not deserve to be a “queen.” The next lesson explored, through a genogram, the women in her family for themes of being a “queen.” The lesson after that addressed, within a group format, her interaction in the lesson in terms of taking a “queen role” within the here and now of the group. The last lesson around the queen metaphor explored the cultural and social messages that influenced the queen symbol. The student also explored the pioneering Zionist “anti-queen” culture in which she was brought up as a culture demanding tough women rather than queens. Focusing on the same image or issue through the various theoretical prisms showed the multifaceted ways of approaching the “queen” theme. As such, it maintained its personal, symbolic meaning, but it was contextualized on many levels. This tactic successfully integrates the dynamic and the systemic or contextualized approaches of therapy around a single symbol, illustrating the complex interaction between the micro world of the client and the macro cultural and societal trends that affect all of us. Thus, the art therapist must constantly check, “shifting” her/his position in relation to the art within the art therapy. This adds ecological depth to the symbol of “queen” and facilitates a repertoire of interventions based on the different theoretical stands, deepening and intensifying the symbol. The student then had to write a paper summarizing and incorporating all of these elements. Her next assignment was to analyze the artworks of one of her placement cases using the same technique. The student thus internalized a complex, multifaceted approach to working with images. Through working with
E. Huss / The Arts in Psychotherapy 36 (2009) 154–160
159
Fig. 5. Table of figures for Joseph’s coat of many colors.
this model a few times in different contexts, she will gradually learn how to smoothly and quickly “shift gear” from one prism to another within therapy, eventually developing the ability to work with them simultaneously. This is the craft of art therapy that can be utilized in different combinations, some of which have been demonstrated in this article.
Discussion and summary The first example shows how Joseph’s story can be understood, or diagnosed, from multiple perspectives to gain more insight before deciding on an intervention. For example, as stated above, if Joseph’s brothers were just about to throw him into the pit, then it would be best to start with a family intervention, but other elements could be incorporated later. The second example shows how the different layers can be systematically worked through to equip the child with the tools to develop insight and also to create a more supportive family system for him. The case of the Bedouin women in the third example suggests using a tentative stand, by applying all of the layers simultaneously to avoid culturally based misunderstandings. The fourth example, from group art therapy, shows how the different layers of unconscious, hidden material, and the creativity, integration, and innovation inherent in creating art, all combine within the group space, with the children leading the most dominant layer at that particular moment, although that balance can shift at any time. The last example showed how this model can be taught systematically, creating a theoretical base as a foundation for different skills. The inclusion of all the layers in a simultaneous but multilayered perspective creates an integrative or ecological base from within which to conceptualize problems, therapy, and art (Huss, 2007a,b; Huss & Cwikel, 2005). Indeed, one theoretical prism alone cannot purport to analyze in enough depth the complex realities of modern society. As Atkinson (2005) states, “We should not seek to understand social life in terms of just one analytic strategy or just one cultural form, analysis should reflect all the forms of social life” (Atkinson, 2005, p. 35). However, this theoretical model’s all-inclusiveness is also its potential limitation, as the inundation with many different therapeutic prisms creates the danger of teaching each one superficially. The challenge, therefore, is to combine them without “flooding” the situation and to create a systematic method for working with them. This paper’s aim is not to downplay the importance of each individual model, but rather to suggest a model that demonstrates several ways of orchestrating the different theoretical levels into an integrative base, so that the therapist learns how and when to skillfully add another theoretical, practice-based layer—just as in a work of art specific colors can be the central theme of a painting, while small touches of other colors contribute to the overall effect. In suggesting the integrative model, an additional claim is made that the approaches to understanding art can be systematically layered to “escort” the client through her/his object relations, family system, unique creativity and personality, and finally through his socially constructed reality. The art therapist can analyze uncon-
scious elements, encourage reflective and creative elements, and use the arts to understand and transform relationships and to express a social reality. She/he (the art therapist) can bring both her/his psychologically and socially contextualized understandings to the therapy. The dialogue between all these different perspectives constitutes, via the meeting between the art therapist and the client within the transitional space of the therapeutic encounter, the potential for communication that understands, integrates, challenges, and transforms. This complex construction of different theoretical prisms is seen as the depth element of art therapy, where the art can incorporate and also integrate within one symbol, or one page, the interaction between temperament, childhood experiences, personality, family roles, and cultural and social contexts. By integrating the theoretical stands, the inherent creativity of the art process is allowed to express itself to the full, as the art therapist, like a painter, skillfully utilizes and controls the theories or colors in her/his professional “coat of many colors” by layering them within the transitional space of the relationship and of the art interaction. The different ways of combining the different prisms, are outlined graphically below, through combining all four different diagrams in Fig. 5.
Acknowledgement Thanks to my student Ms. Rashi Zalut, Lesley University for providing the idea of working with Joseph’s coat of many colors.
References Allen, P. (1995). Art is a way of knowing: A guide to self-knowledge and spiritual fulfillment through creativity. Boston: Shambhala. Arnhiem, R. (1996). The split and the structure: Twenty-eight essays. Berkeley: University of California Press. Atkinson, P. (2005). Qualitative research: Unity and diversity. Forum of Qualitative Social Research, 6(3), 74–90. Barone, T. (2003). Challenging the educational imaginary. Qualitative Inquiry, 9(2), 202–218. Betinsky, M. (1995). What do you see? Phenomenology of therapeutic art experience. U.K.: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Bronfienbrenner, U. (2004). Making human beings human; Bio-ecological perspectives. New York: Sage. Brooke, S. (1996). A guide to art therapy assessments. USA: Charles Thomas. Campanelli, M. (1991). Art therapy and ethnocultural issues. The American Journal of Art Therapy, 30(2), 34–36. Campbell, J. (Ed.). (1999). Art therapy, race and culture. Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Canclini, N. (1996). Strategies for entering and leaving modernity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Carlson, T. D. (1997). Using art in narrative therapy: Enhancing therapeutic possibilities. American Journal of Family Therapy, 25(3). Dalley, T., Gabrielle, R., & Terry, K. (1993). Three voices of art therapy: Image, client, therapist. London: Routledge. De Lio, A. (1973). Children’s drawings as diagnostic aids. New York: Bruner and Mazel. Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1988). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials. London: Sage Publications. Devi, S. (1984). Symbolization and creativity. New York: International University Press. Dokter, D. (Ed.). (1998). Arts therapists, refugees and migrants: Reaching across borders. UK: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Dosmantes-Beaudry, M. (1999). Divergent cultural self-construals: Implications for the practice of dance-movement therapy. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 26(4), 225–231.
160
E. Huss / The Arts in Psychotherapy 36 (2009) 154–160
Eisner, E. (1997). The promises and perils of alternative forms of data representation. Educational Researcher, 26(6), 4–20. Engle, G. (1977). The need for a new medial model, a challenge for biomedical models. Science, 196, 129–136. Furth, G. (1993). The secret world of drawings: A Jungian approach to healing through art. Toronto: Inner City Books. Goodnow, J. (1977). Children’s drawing. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Hermans, H. J. M., & Kempen, H. J. G. (1998). Moving cultures: The perilous problems of cultural dichotomies in a globalizing society. American Psychologist, 53(10), 1111–1120. Hiscox, A. R., & Calisch, A. C. (Eds.). (1998). Tapestry of cultural issues in art therapy. UK: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Hogan, S. (1997). Feminist approaches to art therapy. London, New York: Routledge. Hogan, S. (2003). Gender issues in art therapy. UK: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Huss, E., & Cwikel, J. (2005). Researching creations: Applying arts-based research to Bedouin women’s drawings. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 4(4), 1–16. Huss, E. (2007a). Houses, swimming pools, and thin blonde women: Arts-based research through a critical lens with impoverished Bedouin women. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(7), 960–988. Huss, E. (2007b). Symbolic spaces: Marginalized Bedouin women’s art as selfexpression. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 47(3), 306–319. Kacen, L., & Lev-Wiesel, R. (Eds.). (2002). Group work in a multicultural society. Tel Aviv: Cherikover Publications. Kaye, C., & Blee, T. (Eds.). (1997). The arts in healthcare: A pallette of possibilities. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Koppitz, E. (1984). Psychological evaluation of human figure drawings by middle school pupils. NewYork: Grune and Stratton. Kramer, E. (1971). Art as therapy with children. New York: Schocken Books. Kramer, E. (2000). Art as therapy: Collected papers. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Kvale, S. (Ed.). (1992). Psychology and postmodernism. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Liebman, M. (Ed.). (1996). Arts approaches to conflict. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Lippard, L. (1990). Mixed blessings: New art in a multicultural America. US: Pantheon. Lowenfeld, V., & Brittain, W. (1987). Creative and mental growth. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company. Malchiodi, C. A. (1998). Understanding children’s drawings. New York: The Guilford Press. McNiff, S. (1992). Art as medicine. Boston: Shambhala Press. Moon, H. (2002). Studio art therapy. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Neurenberg, M. (1966). Dynamically oriented art therapy. New York: Gune and Stratton. Pink, S. (2001). Doing visual ethnography. London: Sage. Riley, S. (1997). Social constructivism: The narrative approach and clinical art therapy. Journal of the American Art Therapy Association, 14(4), 282–284. Riley, S., & Malchiodi, C. A. (1994). Integrative approaches to family art therapy. Chicago: Mangolia Street Publishers. Rose, G. (1988). Visual methodologies. London: Sage. Rubin, J. (1999). Art therapy, an introduction. Philadelphia: Bruner and Mazel. Rubin, J. (2001). Approaches to art therapy. Philadelphia: Brunner and Mazel. Rhyne, S. (1996). Gestalt art therapy. New York: Jessika Kingsley. Sava, I., & Nuutinen, K. (2003). At the meeting place of word and picture: Between art and inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 9(4), 515–535. Schaverien, J. (1992). The revealing image: Analytical art psychotherapy in theory and in practice. London: Routledge. Silver, D. (1983). Silver drawing test of cognition and emotion. Sarasota: Ablin Press. Silverstone, L. (1993). Art therapy: The person-centered way. Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Skaife, S. (2001). Making visible: Art therapy and inter-subjectivity. Inscape, (2), 40–50. Smith, D. (2002). Institutional ethnography. In T. May (Ed.), Qualitative research in action (pp. 17–53). London: Sage Publications. Sullivan, G. (2002). Artistic thinking as transcognitive practice: A reconciliation of the process-product dichotomy. Visual Arts Research, 22(1), 2–17. Winnicott, D. (1958). Collected papers: Through pediatrics to psychoanalysis. London: Tavistock Publications.