Jackson Pollock's “psychoanalytic” drawings have been a focus of controversy since they surfaced twenty-odd years ago. Initially, the issue at the center of the turmoil was one of professional ethics and propriety; was it proper or improper for Dr. Henderson, the Jungian therapist, to expose these supposedly confidential communications to public scrutiny, let alone to put them on the commercial market as conventional artistic commodities? Though the litigation has long been concluded, the ethical questions remain a topic of discussion among those of us who are concerned with such matters.

Of more general interest, however, are the theoretical and technical questions raised by such material. Is it legitimate to speak of these or similar productions as “psychoanalytic”? To what degree can they be said to reveal “unconscious” fantasy or conflict? If so, how? What rules of evidence apply? How, if at all, can such material be used for therapeutic purposes? How