The significance of studios

Abstract

The suggestion that it is time to reassert the significance of studios for art therapy caused some disquiet when I first introduced it in a paper at the art therapy conference (TAAT) in Birmingham in 1998. Since that time a number of people (in personal communications) have told me that they think the idea is not feasible because of the way space increasingly has to be shared in public institutions. There also seems to be a fear that asserting the need for studio space could detract from the psychotherapeutic nature of art therapy relationships. I have no wish to do that, but I am interested in exploring the real and the symbolic qualities of physical space and how they might enhance the capacity for mental absorption that is often lost in the midst of distress. The part played by the therapy relationship in facilitating mental space is also acknowledged although not the central focus of the discussion.

The case for the value of a studio-based practice has been made retrospectively in a range of art therapy literature. Here I make a contemporary case for the significance of studios. The studio rooms of well-known artists are compared to those found in art therapy. Studios offer the implicit message of there being time for exploration, play and reverie. They can enable the art therapist to provide an additional dimension and a greater capaciousness for their relationships with clients. Given the high levels of alienation and the complexity of difficulties faced by clients of the public sector, having a studio in which to practise might make the difference between being able to offer therapy and it not being appropriate to do so.

There is a cluster of factors that resulted in the disappearance of some studios, but fundamentally their loss in the 1980s and 1990s is linked to the economic climate. I imply that many developments in theory and practice can be understood dynamically when moving our attention backwards and forwards between the intimacy of the relationship and the political circumstances of the period. This is in stark contrast to much psychotherapeutic literature that has an exclusively clinical focus and only rarely acknowledges the link between changes in theory and practice and the wider context.

In keeping with the ethos of Roth and Fonagys What Works for Whom? (1996), the paper suggests that different kinds of studios may be appropriate for different kinds of client need, but this is just one reason why it could be a good time to challenge the lament over studios and start a song about their current place in the provision of a good practice.