“T

ED

a

KAIET

I

ccspetLc1

buooecud(sftRs

0d

The Arts in Psychotherapy 36 (2009) 154–160

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Arts in Psychotherapy

A coat of many colors”owards an integrative multilayered model of art therapy

phrat Huss, MA ∗

epartment of Social Work and Creative Tools for Social Workers, Ben Gurion University, Israel

r t i c l e i n f o

eywords:

a b s t r a c t

rt Therapy theoryntegrative psychologycological theories of psychologyeaching Art Therapy

This paper describes a theoretical model for conceptualizing art therapy through an integrative multi-layered 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 andthe implementation of its theory. The “depth” of art therapy is the multifaceted character of art thatenables multiple interpretations simultaneously, concurrent with the eclectic and complex realities oftoday’s clients. This paper presents a theoretical model and also demonstrates different systems of its

application.

ntroduction

Art therapy is a highly effective therapeutic medium that canontribute “hands on” skills to therapists, educators, nurses, psy-hologists, and psychiatrists. However, art therapists constantlytruggle with the theoretical base of art therapy. Each theoreticalrism on its own seems to reduce other elements of the art: forxample, when it is used as a projective tool, it loses the value ofhe process and of the context of art making (Brooke, 1996; Kacen &ev-Wiesel, 2002, Koppitz, 1984), and when it focuses only on pro-ess, it loses the value of an analytical and projective theory (McNiff,992; Moon, 2002).

In order to overcome this, we end up moving haphazardlyetween dynamic, humanistic, and systemic outlooks, or we givep completely on theory and becomes a “recipe book” of cute toolsr a new age general revival of creativity as “good for one.” Onccasion, we experience the art and the words as fragmenting, orven competing, along the “art as therapy”–“art as psychotherapy”ontinuum (Allen, 1995; McNiff, 1992). This theoretical struggle ofs the art therapists is apparent in art therapy literature, which isivided into books based on working with different populationsfor example, Hiscox & Calisch, 1998; Kaye & Blee 1997), bookstructured around a single theory, be it biological, or humanistic, oreminist (for example, Hogan, 2003; Silverstone, 1993), and those

hat present multiple theories in separate chapters (for example,ubin, 1999). Additional examples are addressed in the literatureurvey below.

∗ Tel.: +972 86900695.E-mail address: ehuss@bgu.ac.il.

197-4556/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.oi:10.1016/j.aip.2009.01.003

© 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

The aim of this paper is not to downplay the huge advances andimportance of the different strands of art therapy, but to suggestthat such a fragmentation of theory and population, while creatingdiversity and richness, also complicates the forming of a unifiedtheoretical base: should I, as an art therapy educator teach endlessdifferent theories, creating a superficial tool box, or stick religiouslyto the most fashionable one at present, creating depth but reduc-ing the art’s potential? Should I focus on fine art lessons and onaesthetic intuition, or should I teach therapy techniques, alongsidewhich the art is juxtaposed? Or should I teach how art affects thebrain? And how can all this be done in depth? More specifically,what methods, if any, of analyzing the art should be taught? Howdoes one create a student capable of taking a critical stand vis-à-vis his/her profession and developing it further theoretically? Ifwe refuse to address the above complexities theoretically, then arttherapy can turn into a superficial “fit for all” activity or be limitedto a single psychological theory. Neither option, however, seemsto encompass the richness, effectiveness, and wholeness that arttherapy can provide.

This paper proposes the authors’ attempts at a solution to theabove problem, through trying to create an integrative theoreti-cal base. Using an ecological model, an individual is understoodas comprising the interaction between temperamental, childhood,family, communal, cultural, and national realities that ripple out inever-enlarging circles, as in the ecological model of Bronfienbrenner(2004). Each circle leans toward a different theory, from dynamic, tohumanistic, to systemic, to socially critical. The layering of different

theoretical positions – like different shades of cellophane paper, oneon top of the other – enables the creation of an individual “mix” ofa new, indefinable color, deeper and more dynamic than any singleshade of cellophane. This concept represents the author’s under-standing of the real depth of art therapy, which, like art itself, has

hother

tsahepe–tecaoc

ast

L

avstacTtt

twjFMtt(attjDlpsTme

mfdlspttw2aao

E. Huss / The Arts in Psyc

he flexibility to encompass and to contain different prisms of per-onality within a single page or art process. This provides a complexnd encompassing narrative of an individual as both the product ofer unique combination of circumstances and also as having inher-nt agency and creativity to counteract them. This frames the aboveroblem as the solution based on the assumption that art’s inher-nt ability to layer multifaceted levels of meaning – its multiplicitymakes it a medium capable of encompassing multiple levels of

heory simultaneously. Likewise, the art medium is particularly rel-vant to the postmodern, eclectic era we live in, where problemsannot be explained using one “grand narrative.” People’s problemsre analyzed and understood by concurrently drawing on a varietyf different theories that derive from the interaction between theonstantly shifting, world.

The literature survey that follows elaborates the points madebove, after which examples are offered as to how this theoreticaltand can be implemented in art therapy practice, both with regardo different populations and within art therapy teaching.

iterature survey

The complex, triangular relationship between client, therapist,nd artwork is the differentiating factor between art therapy anderbal therapy. Different interpretations of this triangular relation-hip have evolved, each stressing different elements of art as theherapy (Rubin, 2001). As such, the literature examines the methodsnd searches for the meanings that the arts give to therapy, but theurrent literature does not create an integrated, theoretical whole.he following is a non-exhaustive sample of some of the central,heoretical approaches used in art therapy that are incorporated inhis paper.

Art therapy through the dynamic prism focuses on the patients’ransference relationship with the art and on the art as an additionalay to access unconscious and archetypal contents and the pro-

ective relationship (Brook, 1996; Dalley, Gabrielle, & Terry, 1993;urth, 1993; Neurenberg, 1966; Rubin, 1999; Schaverien, 1992).ore current dynamic approaches, based on Winnicott’s transi-

ional space (Winnicott, 1958), address the art as an expression ofhe inter-subjective spaces created between therapist and clientSkaife, 2001). The creative activity that occurs between art ther-pist and client on the art page can be seen as mirroring theransitional space between mother and child according to dynamicheories: A development of the above is the concept of art as pro-ective, as in the use of diagnostic tests in art therapy (Brooke, 1996;e Lio, 1973; Goodnow, 1977; Silver, 1983). Art through a dynamic

ens is thus understood primarily as a regressive, universal, androjective language, analyzed by psychological meta-theory, and asuch, it is seen as connected to fantasy and to desire (Rose, 1988).he dynamic approach, however, can be based on meta-theories ofan that are culturally invalid, and that reduce art to a projective

lement, neglecting its interactive and social realities.The humanistic prism, in comparison, sees the creative engage-

ent in art’s reflective, expressive, and integrative processes as theocus of art therapy, enhancing emotional and cognitive insight andevelopment and promoting health. Betinsky stresses phenomeno-

ogical interaction with the art product (Betinsky, 1995). McNiffuggest that the arts are a type of “medicine,” that works inde-endently of the therapeutic relationship (McNiff, 1992). Withinhis theoretical framework, the art is understood by the client withhe help of the therapist, whose role is that of the catalyst and

itness of this reflective process (Allen, 1995; Devi, 1984; Moon,

002). Gestalt, narrative, and developmental theories of art ther-py; (Carlson, 1997; Rhyne, 1996; Riley, 1997) all incorporate therts within this humanistic perspective of man as the creative fixerf his own life. However, the limitation of this perspective is its lack

apy 36 (2009) 154–160 155

of both unconscious and also social and cultural parts of the client’sreality.

The systemic prism is concerned with changing relationshipsand 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, andto help one experience the symbolic changes of roles (Riley &Malchiodi, 1994). The focus here is on art as a process. A drawbackof this position is its failure to enable individual reflection, or itsunderlying assumption that “instant” solutions are possible merelyby changing the experience in the present.

The community or social prism focuses on the ability of art todefine a group’s identity on a more encompassing level, to human-ize institutions, and to provide the unheard minority groups, whichconstitute the majority of art therapy clientele, with a voice. Thistheoretical stand assumes that people’s problems are often theresult of social, financial, and cultural realities rather than thereflection 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 thatit presents (Dokter, 1998; Hogan, 1997; Liebman, 1996). The socialand community orientations, however, do not discern individualexperience and agency, or individual difference, within the socialcontext.

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 apersonal form of self-expression that can be explained only by thecreator, either claiming that art does not need to be “understood”but rather experienced, or understanding art that is a social andpolitical comment that needs to be contextualized within its socialreality. We see that each stands alone, by definition, omits ele-ments found in the others, and reduces the potential of therapeuticinsights that the arts can provide when all of these levels are lay-ered systematically as in an ecological perspective that moves fromthe individual to society (Kvale, 1992). This differs from a postmod-ern stand that sees man’s multiple identity as fragmented into ahaphazard string of “identities,” due to an incoherent social reality(Canclini, 1996; Hermans & Kempen, 1998). While the postmod-ern stand may be true politically, it is hard to apply within theframework of therapy.

For therapists, in contrast to philosophers, the ecological modelseems more helpful (Bronfienbrenner, 2004; Engle, 1977) as itprovides a coherent “map” of man that can be utilized system-atically while still accounting for all the elements of a complexidentity. As Smith states: “It is always possible to locate individ-ual agency without submitting to either extreme interpretations ofFoucault’s views of power as disembodied, or to naïve formulationsof individualism. . .” (Smith, 2002, p. 34).

This paper is built on the premise, as stated, that art is a mediumthat enables the multifaceted, hybrid, or fragmented elements ofmodern identity to be held together within a single creation. Indeed,Lippard, an art critic, declared, “. . . Art is able to contain. . . hybridand emotionally complex stories derived from both tradition andexperience, old-new stories, challenge the pervasive ‘master nar-ratives’ that would contain them. . . It has become clear that thehybrid is one of the most authentic creative expressions in theUnited States” (Lippard, 1990, p. 57).

The visual form’s many-sidedness can help explain the authen-ticity of the hybrids (Devi, 1984). Arnhiem (1996) and Lowenfeld

and Brittain (1987) define symbolic language as simultaneouslyinternally and externally focused, cognitive and emotional, andcommunicating with the self and with the environment. Observinga picture (either by the creator or others) and talking about it cre-ates additional dualities, as it is both a reflective and an expressive

1 hotherapy 36 (2009) 154–160

aLrcadciSdeo

tsupeaoc(cMsctmam

T

itchotehfo

EJ

oifyhatphch

pfmi

56 E. Huss / The Arts in Psyc

ctivity, just like making art (Eisner, 1997; Pink, 2001). Denzin andincoln (1988) describe experiential forms of self-expression withinesearch as going “inwards and outwards, backwards and forwards,”reating a statement that cannot be reduced to one meaning. Savand Nuutinen (2003) define the complex relationship betweenrawing and words as creating “. . . a field of many understandings,reating a third thing which is sensory, multi-interpretive, intu-tive, ever-changing, and avoiding the final seal of truth” (p. 532).ullivan (2002), an arts-based researcher, uses a rope metaphor toescribe the complex, multilayered interaction of the artistic form:ach element of the art – process, product, and context – is a partf an intertwined rope that forms the art speech act.

Taken together, the points made above reveal the ability ofhe arts to simultaneously encompass different theoretical under-tandings, making art an ideal medium for expressing an eclecticnderstanding of people and their problems (Barone, 2003). Inractice, art therapists often intuitively integrate these differ-nt prisms. For example, while using dynamic theories, Kramerlso stresses the cultural socializing and ego-enhancing activityf art (Kramer, 1971, 2000). Betensky claims a phenomenologi-al approach but assumes unconscious meanings within the artBetinsky, 1995). Malchiodi approaches child art therapy from aomplex, ecological perspective (Malchiodi, 1998), and Riley andalchiodi specifically claim to integrate dynamic, narrative, and

ystemic elements (Riley & Malchiodi, 1994). Although the authorsited in the above examples do, in fact, combine different prisms,he aim of this paper is to demonstrate how these different layers of

eaning within art can be systematically utilized within art ther-py. In the next section I describe various methods of tailoring thisultilayered analysis to the needs of different population groups.

he multilayered theory: examples of its application

While this paper is theoretical rather than empirical, the follow-ng examples, both invented and extracted from case work and fromeaching, aim to show the different ways in which the above theoryan be applied. The identifying features of the examples presentedave been eliminated, and the clients whose cases form the basisf the examples have signed consent forms stating that they agreeo be included in this paper. It is important to emphasize that thesexamples do not represent full case studies, but rather, they showow the above theory can be applied in different ways and in dif-

erent situations. Each example will focus on a particular metaphorr work of art.

xample 1—working linearly from the dynamic to the social:oseph’s coat of many colors

The first example is a theoretical example based on the characterf Joseph from the Bible (Genesis, 37.3). At 17 years of age, Josephs 1 of 12 brothers, 10 of whom are his half-brothers born to 4 dif-erent mothers. (Joseph’s own mother, Rachel, died giving birth to aounger brother.) He is his father’s favorite son and, consequently,is brothers’ most hated sibling. His most treasured possession iscolored coat, a gift from his father. Joseph has dreams that seem

o indicate that he is destined for greatness, and he exacerbates hisroblematic position in the family by frequently repeating these tois brothers. He arrives at art therapy feeling confused and lonely,aught up in the conflict between his father’s love and his brothers’ate.

Looking through the prism of dynamic therapy, the art thera-ist will understand the cause of Joseph’s suffering as stemmingrom his early childhood experiences, particularly the death of his

other at a young age, and his narcissistic compensation. She willnterpret this and bring it into Joseph’s consciousness by analyzing

Fig. 1.

the transferred relationships and the unconscious meanings of thecoat and of symbols in his dreams, maybe encouraging him to drawthem (the sun and moon as his parents, for example). The coloredcoat can be understood as a transitional object, as a metaphor for hisnarcissistic compensation, and this need will also be expressed inthe 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’sdevelopmental challenges in the present—as a young man try-ing to define his specific “colors” in the context of his childhoodand present relationships. Here, the coat can be understood as anexpression of Joseph’s creative and reflective individuality, and itcan be used to help him integrate his identity and to find out what“color” he really is.

Incorporating the next interactive ecological plane, the prismof systemic art therapy, the therapist can help access the siblings’experience of their father’s favoritism toward Joseph, and art couldbe used both as a medium for expressing these roles and as anavenue for changing them—for instance, via each son’s creation ofa different coat of his own colors. The mourning of the mother andthe pattern of filial favoritism can be worked through in terms ofpast family patterns (Isaac/Ishmael; Jacob/Esau), with the coat ofmany colors functioning as the organizing metaphor of the family.

From the social and cultural prisms, the roles of multiple moth-ers and of one brother being chosen to assume the father-role mustbe understood as the accepted frame for a collective family and notas a problem in itself. The role of an embroidered coat of many colorsas a clear sign of dominance within the family must be understoodin terms of this social context, which can be explained by the familyitself.

The above example shows that the therapist can systematicallyintegrate theories that encompass the different ecological circlesof one’s life to create a rounded understanding of “Joseph’s coatand problems,” which enables a repertoire of art interventions orskills, each firmly based within its theoretical stand, but all workingtogether, as exemplified in the following diagram that is based on

Bronfienbrenner’s ecological circles (2004) from the individual tothe group ecological social circles (Fig. 1).

Systematically working through the different prisms, from theinside out (from the individual to the social), can, over time, helpcreate an intervention program and can help the therapist formu-

hotherapy 36 (2009) 154–160 157

luihiliw

E

ehvuH

ftajttiawat

secet

cbcrdi“at“tb

fAobgc

wtcpituat(

E. Huss / The Arts in Psyc

ate an assessment system that “checks” these different levels ofnderstandings to see which seems most “urgent.” For example,

f Joseph’s brothers are, at this point, just contemplating throwingim into the pit, then it would make sense to start from a family

ntervention! The systematic working through of the different eco-ogical levels is often undertaken when working with children, asn the next example involving a kibbutz child who was lonely and

ithdrawn.

xample 2—the lonely wolf-child in an ever-changing jungle

Although initially Oren’s parents refused family therapy, theyventually acquiesced. Members of a kibbutz in Israel, Oren andis parents were dealing with the internal turmoil brought on by aariety of social issues, not the least of which were the ideologicalpheaval in the kibbutz movement and the indirect effect of theolocaust on their family.

One of Oren’s first pictures was of a wolf looking from afar at aather wolf in the forest. The first, dynamic stage of the interven-ion interpreted this picture and behavior in terms of basic trustnd of an oedipal relationship with the daunting “father wolf.” Pro-ections onto the therapist and the elaboration of the themes inhe art, such as the difficulty to trust, were developed and workedhrough. After about 6 months, the “humanistic” orientation wasmplemented, in which the boy addressed issues of self-esteemnd self-acceptance by examining the different “animals” that livedithin himself in addition to the wolf, such as a cuddly teddy bear,

mong others. These characters were drawn and dramatized, andhis stage continued for about 3 months.

The next systemic stage was to invite the family to one of hisessions. Themes of the lonely wolf were observed, explained, andxamined in the family’s overall genogram in relation to parenthild relationships. In an attempt to correct the patterns of dis-ngagement within the family, the parents continued in coupleherapy.

In terms of a cultural and social prism, the influence of the Holo-aust as the place where trust was broken in the family’s directackground was examined, as was the more recent break-up of theollective ideals within the kibbutz movement, which effectivelyeturned children to sleep at home and forced their families toeal with issues of intimacy (the children moved into their fam-

ly homes instead of living in communal children’s homes). Thelonely wolf” in this context was understood not as oedipal, buts a metaphor for the grandparents survival mechanisms. On a cul-ural level, being “intimate” in an exclusive relationship and beingalone” ran counter to the social ethics of the kibbutz. In this cul-ural context, the child’s isolation was experienced as a deep failurey his parents.

The last intervention was the inclusion in the art sessions of aew potential friends who together created a “jungle” and animals.t this stage interventions entailed the reframing and monitoringf the roles that the boy took in relation to the other children. Theoy’s insights were integrated into concrete social skills throughroup art work, that helped him interact with other children. Thisontinued for 2 months.

Each consecutive stand enabled different aspects of the “lonelyolf” picture or metaphor to be examined and integrated. As stated,

his type of ecological intervention is normative when working withhildren, who are understood to be dependent on both past andresent systems. All the theories do not need to be used in the

ntervention, although looking through the different prisms – e.g.,

he theoretical case of Joseph – enables a rigorous and systemicnderstanding of the problem at hand, as expressed through thertwork and as expressed in the following diagram, that outlines theheories as modular elements, to be “chained together” as neededFig. 2).

Fig. 2.

Another method of including all the prisms in an analysis isusing them simultaneously rather than consecutively, as a way ofmaintaining a tentative stand toward a picture. Here, each “under-standing” of the art is used to deconstruct other understandings orto hold a tentative stand, appropriate when working with peoplefrom different cultural backgrounds who may not understand whatthe therapist understands from the picture. The following exampleillustrates this.

Example 3—an intercultural encounter

In a welfare support group of impoverished Bedouin women (anindigenous population in Israel), one young woman drew a blackcircle and gazed at it. She could not find the words to define whatshe meant by the black circle she had drawn. There was no wayfor the Jewish Israeli researcher” to “enter” this picture until theartist explained it. From a dynamic or “diagnostic” perspective, theart therapist could define the empty black circle, removed from thecontext of its creator, as an expression of depression, emptiness, andlack of trust in others. However, later in the discussion, the woman’sfriend who was sitting next to her, explained, “I think you are draw-ing that you feel closed in a circle you can’t get out of—there are somany people in your small house.” The creator of the black circlenodded in agreement. From a humanistic stand, she is describing anexperience of confinement and lack of content. From a family level,the woman can be understood as describing her experience of a lackof personal space within the family, while on a societal level, she isdescribing the limitations of poverty and of gender roles by definingthese things in the group space. The second woman “entered” herneighbor’s picture and explained it, creating a group consensus ofthe experience of small, crowded living quarters and giving “voice”to the individual woman’s symbol of a shared reality, thus creatinga socially critical statement.

The black circle, then, can encompass a spectrum of understand-ings of the woman’s issues. It can simultaneously be understoodas an expression of inherent depression and as an expression ofa familial or political reality. Similarly, in terms of the relation-ship with the therapist, the “closed” element of the black circlecan be understood dynamically as a resistance to intimacy, and,socially–politically, as resistance to allowing a woman from anexternal and dominant culture to define the picture or “enter” theclosed circle.

Compared to the first two examples, which utilized differ-ent stands over time within the therapeutic intervention, theabove example shows how all the different theoretical levels ofunderstanding can be used to elucidate the picture within a sin-gle, simultaneous gaze that enables the expression – but alsodeconstruction or re-interpretation – of each theoretical stand asabsolute. This initially tentative position enables a culturally sensi-tive stand toward the art of people from non-Western cultures thatcan then continue, using the most relevant interpretation for thewoman herself, once a starting point for intervention (i.e., treat-ment for depression, political activism, or family intervention) hasbeen decided upon. This simultaneous utilization of all the layers

of the multilayered prisms that deconstruct each other is showngraphically as the following intertwining of different colors thatdo 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

Es

tpsaofttmdootghttttdoffdw(

E

aim

Fig. 3.

xample 4—group art therapy: combining dynamic, systemic, andocial elements within group work

Children from violent homes often hide that part of their reali-ies, and thus have secrets that they guard on different levels, bothsychological and within their social realities. For example, whenuch children draw their houses, their artwork can be understoods containing dynamic “secrets” from the subconscious – as imagesf the children – but also as houses containing “real” secrets drawnrom the children’s difficult family lives. Both of these levels of con-ent can be distanced, hidden, expressed, and worked through inhe group indirectly – from within the contents of the art – while

aintaining or gradually dismantling the children’s privacy andefenses as needed. In addition to the above dual understandingf the houses, the “building” of the house together, out of boxes orn large pages, is also addressed systemically as a place to expresshe coping and interactive mechanisms of the children within theroup process, such as how they cope with their own anger andow they learn to trust others (i.e., create a “good enough” houseogether, learn to express anger non-aggressively). The houses canhus be seen as dynamic, humanistic, systemic, or social systems ofherapy, with the relative dominance of each level changing overime and across children, but with all levels, in fact, taking part. Byefinition, groups are multifaceted experiences, but the inclusionf art, as described above, creates a concrete container for these dif-erent levels that are all enacted simultaneously, as depicted in theollowing diagram, that shows how each element exists indepen-ently within it’s own shape, but is seen as a simultaneous geshtalt,ith the different shapes interacting dynamically among each other

Fig. 4).

xample 5—Shira, an art therapy student

This paper started with the question of how to teach art therapy,nd so the last example utilizes an art therapy student’s metaphor-cal “queen” image that is used as a didactic tool to teach the above

ultilayering 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 longroyal 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 reflec-tively on all of the different levels during her art therapy classes.Each lesson began by introducing the theory behind one of the the-oretical levels and the next lesson was devoted to examining andto working with the picture through the lens of that theoreticalprism, including analyzing the meaning of the picture and whatthat meant for the roles of therapist and of art intervention. In thiscase, the analysis started dynamically from the oedipal relationshipwith her mother as “queen” and the transference of this relation-ship to the “queen” teacher that she both resists and admires. In thefollowing lesson, the student examined the image from a human-istic standpoint. She explored issues of self-esteem and entered a“dialogue” with the parts of her that felt that they did not deserveto be a “queen.” The next lesson explored, through a genogram,the women in her family for themes of being a “queen.” The lessonafter that addressed, within a group format, her interaction in thelesson in terms of taking a “queen role” within the here and now ofthe group. The last lesson around the queen metaphor explored thecultural and social messages that influenced the queen symbol. Thestudent also explored the pioneering Zionist “anti-queen” culturein which she was brought up as a culture demanding tough womenrather than queens.

Focusing on the same image or issue through the various the-oretical prisms showed the multifaceted ways of approachingthe “queen” theme. As such, it maintained its personal, symbolicmeaning, but it was contextualized on many levels. This tactic suc-cessfully integrates the dynamic and the systemic or contextualizedapproaches of therapy around a single symbol, illustrating the com-plex interaction between the micro world of the client and themacro cultural and societal trends that affect all of us. Thus, the arttherapist must constantly check, “shifting” her/his position in rela-tion to the art within the art therapy. This adds ecological depth tothe symbol of “queen” and facilitates a repertoire of interventionsbased on the different theoretical stands, deepening and intensify-ing the symbol. The student then had to write a paper summarizing

and incorporating all of these elements. Her next assignment wasto analyze the artworks of one of her placement cases using thesame technique. The student thus internalized a complex, multi-faceted approach to working with images. Through working with

E. Huss / The Arts in Psychotherapy 36 (2009) 154–160 159

r Josep

thwsii

D

obiimttsiadhccdcbf

pwHpssc(

ppTttisasww

tess

Fig. 5. Table of figures fo

his model a few times in different contexts, she will gradually learnow to smoothly and quickly “shift gear” from one prism to anotherithin therapy, eventually developing the ability to work with them

imultaneously. This is the craft of art therapy that can be utilizedn different combinations, some of which have been demonstratedn this article.

iscussion and summary

The first example shows how Joseph’s story can be understood,r diagnosed, from multiple perspectives to gain more insightefore deciding on an intervention. For example, as stated above,

f Joseph’s brothers were just about to throw him into the pit, thent would be best to start with a family intervention, but other ele-

ents could be incorporated later. The second example shows howhe different layers can be systematically worked through to equiphe child with the tools to develop insight and also to create a moreupportive family system for him. The case of the Bedouin womenn the third example suggests using a tentative stand, by applyingll of the layers simultaneously to avoid culturally based misun-erstandings. The fourth example, from group art therapy, showsow the different layers of unconscious, hidden material, and thereativity, integration, and innovation inherent in creating art, allombine within the group space, with the children leading the mostominant layer at that particular moment, although that balancean shift at any time. The last example showed how this model cane taught systematically, creating a theoretical base as a foundationor different skills.

The inclusion of all the layers in a simultaneous but multilayerederspective creates an integrative or ecological base from withinhich to conceptualize problems, therapy, and art (Huss, 2007a,b;uss & Cwikel, 2005). Indeed, one theoretical prism alone cannoturport to analyze in enough depth the complex realities of modernociety. As Atkinson (2005) states, “We should not seek to under-tand social life in terms of just one analytic strategy or just oneultural form, analysis should reflect all the forms of social life”Atkinson, 2005, p. 35).

However, this theoretical model’s all-inclusiveness is also itsotential limitation, as the inundation with many different thera-eutic prisms creates the danger of teaching each one superficially.he challenge, therefore, is to combine them without “flooding”he situation and to create a systematic method for working withhem. This paper’s aim is not to downplay the importance of eachndividual model, but rather to suggest a model that demonstrateseveral ways of orchestrating the different theoretical levels inton integrative base, so that the therapist learns how and when tokillfully add another theoretical, practice-based layer—just as in aork of art specific colors can be the central theme of a painting,hile small touches of other colors contribute to the overall effect.

In suggesting the integrative model, an additional claim is madehat the approaches to understanding art can be systematically lay-red to “escort” the client through her/his object relations, familyystem, unique creativity and personality, and finally through hisocially constructed reality. The art therapist can analyze uncon-

h’s coat of many colors.

scious elements, encourage reflective and creative elements, anduse the arts to understand and transform relationships and toexpress a social reality. She/he (the art therapist) can bring bothher/his psychologically and socially contextualized understandingsto the therapy. The dialogue between all these different perspec-tives constitutes, via the meeting between the art therapist and theclient within the transitional space of the therapeutic encounter,the potential for communication that understands, integrates, chal-lenges, and transforms. This complex construction of differenttheoretical prisms is seen as the depth element of art therapy, wherethe art can incorporate and also integrate within one symbol, orone page, the interaction between temperament, childhood expe-riences, personality, family roles, and cultural and social contexts.By integrating the theoretical stands, the inherent creativity of theart process is allowed to express itself to the full, as the art therapist,like a painter, skillfully utilizes and controls the theories or colors inher/his professional “coat of many colors” by layering them withinthe transitional space of the relationship and of the art interaction.The different ways of combining the different prisms, are outlinedgraphically below, through combining all four different diagrams inFig. 5.

Acknowledgement

Thanks to my student Ms. Rashi Zalut, Lesley University for pro-viding 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 fulfill-ment through creativity. Boston: Shambhala.

Arnhiem, R. (1996). The split and the structure: Twenty-eight essays. Berkeley: Univer-sity of California Press.

Atkinson, P. (2005). Qualitative research: Unity and diversity. Forum of QualitativeSocial 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: Uni-

versity of Minnesota Press.Carlson, T. D. (1997). Using art in narrative therapy: Enhancing therapeutic possibil-

ities. 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. Lon-

don: 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.

1 hothe

E

E

F

GH

H

HHH

H

H

K

K

K

KK

KL

Smith, D. (2002). Institutional ethnography. In T. May (Ed.), Qualitative research in

60 E. Huss / The Arts in Psyc

isner, E. (1997). The promises and perils of alternative forms of data representation.Educational Researcher, 26(6), 4–20.

ngle, G. (1977). The need for a new medial model, a challenge for biomedical models.Science, 196, 129–136.

urth, G. (1993). The secret world of drawings: A Jungian approach to healing throughart. Toronto: Inner City Books.

oodnow, J. (1977). Children’s drawing. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.ermans, 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.

iscox, A. R., & Calisch, A. C. (Eds.). (1998). Tapestry of cultural issues in art therapy.UK: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

ogan, S. (1997). Feminist approaches to art therapy. London, New York: Routledge.ogan, S. (2003). Gender issues in art therapy. UK: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.uss, E., & Cwikel, J. (2005). Researching creations: Applying arts-based research

to Bedouin women’s drawings. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 4(4),1–16.

uss, E. (2007a). Houses, swimming pools, and thin blonde women: Arts-basedresearch through a critical lens with impoverished Bedouin women. QualitativeInquiry, 13(7), 960–988.

uss, E. (2007b). Symbolic spaces: Marginalized Bedouin women’s art as self-expression. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 47(3), 306–319.

acen, L., & Lev-Wiesel, R. (Eds.). (2002). Group work in a multicultural society. TelAviv: Cherikover Publications.

aye, C., & Blee, T. (Eds.). (1997). The arts in healthcare: A pallette of possibilities.London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

oppitz, E. (1984). Psychological evaluation of human figure drawings by middle schoolpupils. NewYork: Grune and Stratton.

ramer, E. (1971). Art as therapy with children. New York: Schocken Books.ramer, E. (2000). Art as therapy: Collected papers. London: Jessica Kingsley Publish-

ers.vale, S. (Ed.). (1992). Psychology and postmodernism. Thousand Oaks: Sage.iebman, M. (Ed.). (1996). Arts approaches to conflict. London: Jessica Kingsley Pub-

lishers.

rapy 36 (2009) 154–160

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 Strat-

ton.Pink, S. (2001). Doing visual ethnography. London: Sage.Riley, S. (1997). Social constructivism: The narrative approach and clinical art ther-

apy. 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.

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.