Thre is a story there, which I won't tell here, other than to say that it is a good argument for supporting public libraries. Bored teenagers in a new town are better off in a library than in other places they might end up.
Anyway, now I encounter the art-psychiatry connection again, but with a twist. Rather that art produced by the patient, it is art produced by a doctor, depicting his emotional impressions of the things that patients told him.
Edith lives with bipolar disorder and a dissociative disorder; she has been in recovery from alcohol and drug dependence for over 20 years. I asked her if she would like me to make a painting for her, and if so, what should it show.
Dr. Rustin considers this to be "outsider art." By that he means that it is art that is done by someone with no formal artistic training.
I'm not quite sure what to make of this. Regular readers may have noticed that I am not a big fan of self-disclosure. Showing something like this to a patient would seem to me to be a non-standard practice in this regard.
I began painting two years ago with no purpose in mind other than to understand more completely the emotional experiences of my clients. Prior to that time, it had never occurred to me to put paint to canvas. Having had no training in painting or sculpture, I did not consider what I was doing as creating "art"; rather, I was seeking to represent an experience or a feeling. Only later did I begin to wonder what it was that I had created...
...On looking around my office at the forty or so paintings displayed there, a client asked how many I had sold. The thought of selling these paintings made me feel uncomfortable, even insulted. I explained to the client that the paintings are part of my relationship with my clients, and to sell one would feel like a violation of the bond between us...
Psychiatrists are taught to examine their own emotional responses to patients, as a way to understand them and what they are going through. But tradition dictates that these reactions are shared only very judiciously. Dr. Rustin's use of his own artwork goes against that tradition. That does not make it wrong, but it is grounds for caution.
Dr. Rustin does not describe any kind of investigation into the therapeutic value of this activity, nor does he offer any consideration of the possibility that it could be harmful. It is not immediate obvious that it would be harmful, but for now I would have to say that such activities be undertaken only with the realization that it is unexplored therapeutic territory.
Brain & Behavior
Comments
Yeah, I'm not sure how this would be helpful for the patient--- in fact, it might exacerbate the situation? Weird.
Posted by: April | August 22, 2008 12:29 PM
1) It's not "outsider art" if it's done self-consciously and with intent. It's just plain old "amateur art."
2) As a client, I'd be very bothered if my therapist offered to paint a picture of what he thinks of me. But not as bothered as I'd be if he brought his acoustic guitar to my session:
"Oh, Howard, I know you think you're depressed,
But you really just got Anger issues.
Calm down, there's no need to get upset,
But if you need 'em, here's a box o' tissues."
Posted by: HP | August 22, 2008 4:26 PM