"یک کت با رنگهای زیاد": به سوی یک مدل چند لایه یکپارچه از هنر درمانی

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.

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 and 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 and Silverstone, 1993), and those that present multiple theories in separate chapters (for example, Rubin, 1999). Additional examples are addressed in the literature survey below. 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 vis-à-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 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.

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 and Huss, 2007b; 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 unconscious 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. Full-size image (21 K) Fig. 5. Table of figures for Joseph's coat of many colors.