Letters to the Editor What is I
therapy?
recently heard a conversation on the position-to-be of art therapy, and a few points came to mind that I should like to try and summarise. Firstly, is there not some confusion in the nomenclature of various types of therapy? We have expressions meaning therapy-of-such and such: .thus speech therapy; and therapy-toy such and such, for
example chemo-therapy or group therapy. Then there are terms of which
the users are not in agreement whether the therapy is by something, or of something; examples here are physiotherapy, and, regrettably, psychotherapy. Is there any official body which could come to some agreed and rational system of
nomenclature?
Secondly, can therapies most usefully be classified in terms of the types of disorders they treat, or in terms of the methods and techniques used in treating any type of disorder? The latter seems to be the most prevalent practice, along which professional specialisations have grown. Is it possible that a rut of thought has arisen so that at the mention of a new type of therapy, it seems to be assumed that a new sub-profession will arise to practise it? Also, is it not the case that whereas
*
suggest pictology might be a better w? However, it seems more likely that
therapy has much more potential tn ^ pictology; it may be applied *js therapy in a wide range of disor^j
mere
Since one would not be so interested the aesthetic as in the symptomatic a,(j clinical value of the material, it vvoy
,
arUj
need psychotherapists rather than to be the ones to develoD develop it as a toollie* great scope. The trainers in such a practice would be the pioneers of iti it would be taught as one of the available to the versatile and
^
metb^jj
equipped psychotherapist. Would this. ? a wise way to bring these methods to benefit of patients? ^ If, as an alternative, art th.er?P becomes a separate professional praC 0f can one validly foresee any dangers, rivalries arising from the develop',', scope and aspirations of the new meth conflicting with a limited role and sta, that may initially be defined for the Demarcation disputes that may aL. would ill befit those who seek to stand and alleviate conflicts, not jo}11. them. Mallory \Vobe London, W.l.
methods, for diet therapy within the limits of their own profession, psychotherapists (the true generic term for healers of the disordered psycho seem less inclined to take over newly developed techniques, and allow the separate growth of numerous special practices? Is there a real difference between the existence of specialised practices within a certain profession, and that of a group of related professions, each of different standing? And how might such differences of professional structure affect treatment received by patients? Now to consider art therapy. If this is to be developed with the least confidence in its potential, it could serve as a diagnostic study of pictures made by patients. This would make it a technology analogous to radiography in medicine. It would give similar service to psychotherapy as does Rhorshach testing, and the training and practice of it might usefully be organised around this existing discipline. The term therapy would be superfluous, and I physicians can use the example, of drug therapy
or
?Practically all the letters we publish in this issue comment on the Creative Therapy issue June, 1963. They form an interesting addendum to Mrs. Mirrey's article on page 185.
therapy?
recently heard a conversation on the position-to-be of art therapy, and a few points came to mind that I should like to try and summarise. Firstly, is there not some confusion in the nomenclature of various types of therapy? We have expressions meaning therapy-of-such and such: .thus speech therapy; and therapy-toy such and such, for
example chemo-therapy or group therapy. Then there are terms of which
the users are not in agreement whether the therapy is by something, or of something; examples here are physiotherapy, and, regrettably, psychotherapy. Is there any official body which could come to some agreed and rational system of
nomenclature?
Secondly, can therapies most usefully be classified in terms of the types of disorders they treat, or in terms of the methods and techniques used in treating any type of disorder? The latter seems to be the most prevalent practice, along which professional specialisations have grown. Is it possible that a rut of thought has arisen so that at the mention of a new type of therapy, it seems to be assumed that a new sub-profession will arise to practise it? Also, is it not the case that whereas
*
suggest pictology might be a better w? However, it seems more likely that
therapy has much more potential tn ^ pictology; it may be applied *js therapy in a wide range of disor^j
mere
Since one would not be so interested the aesthetic as in the symptomatic a,(j clinical value of the material, it vvoy
,
arUj
need psychotherapists rather than to be the ones to develoD develop it as a toollie* great scope. The trainers in such a practice would be the pioneers of iti it would be taught as one of the available to the versatile and
^
metb^jj
equipped psychotherapist. Would this. ? a wise way to bring these methods to benefit of patients? ^ If, as an alternative, art th.er?P becomes a separate professional praC 0f can one validly foresee any dangers, rivalries arising from the develop',', scope and aspirations of the new meth conflicting with a limited role and sta, that may initially be defined for the Demarcation disputes that may aL. would ill befit those who seek to stand and alleviate conflicts, not jo}11. them. Mallory \Vobe London, W.l.
methods, for diet therapy within the limits of their own profession, psychotherapists (the true generic term for healers of the disordered psycho seem less inclined to take over newly developed techniques, and allow the separate growth of numerous special practices? Is there a real difference between the existence of specialised practices within a certain profession, and that of a group of related professions, each of different standing? And how might such differences of professional structure affect treatment received by patients? Now to consider art therapy. If this is to be developed with the least confidence in its potential, it could serve as a diagnostic study of pictures made by patients. This would make it a technology analogous to radiography in medicine. It would give similar service to psychotherapy as does Rhorshach testing, and the training and practice of it might usefully be organised around this existing discipline. The term therapy would be superfluous, and I physicians can use the example, of drug therapy
or
?Practically all the letters we publish in this issue comment on the Creative Therapy issue June, 1963. They form an interesting addendum to Mrs. Mirrey's article on page 185.
