You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
Art therapy was established, through a hard struggle, comparatively recently in this country, as a recognised therapy with a professional training. The term was not used until the 1940s and criteria for training were really only established in the 1970s. The post-graduate training for art therapists now has DHSS approval, and combines clinical and theoretical studies, the application of the therapist's own creative side and the development of self-awareness.
This book conveys a wide range of views on art therapy, in theory and practice. It is addressed to a wide audience, in related professions, as well as to ‘those who basically believe that there is more to art than paint on paper’. The editor, Tessa Dalley, defines art activity as generally having a therapeutic purpose, but makes the distinction between art aimed at looking good, and art where the process of creation is of primary importance. She describes art activity undertaken in a therapeutic setting, in the presence of a therapist, where the ‘art activity provides a concrete rather than verbal medium through which a person can achieve both conscious and unconscious expression, and can be used as a valuable agent for therapeutic change’.
She then attempts to consider what makes art therapeutic, as not all art activity is healing. She describes the value of using symbolic representation in art, rather than in speech, when speech is impaired, under-developed, or rejected as the normal means of communication. Making marks can be a fundamental and universal means of communication - ‘even for the most articulate, art can be used as a type of “symbolic speech”, a means of saying something non-verbally through symbols’. She adds that symbolising feelings and experiences in images can render them less threatening. I feel that although this could be a valid view, it implies that verbal expression is more threatening than visual expression. This assumption is also made elsewhere in the book, and is the sort of generalisa