Editorial

This issue presents four diverse articles which I believe reflect something of the diversity in contemporary Art Therapy itself: Boram Park presents a study relating to Art Therapy training; Dafna Regev and Rotem Patishi describe a structured approach to studying mothers and children drawing together; Susan Hogan, David Sheffield and Amelia Woodward offer a literature review of arts and Art Therapy within an antenatal and postnatal care context; and Tim Wright and Tanya Andrew describe a pilot of a clinical intervention.

The article by Boram Park described the phenomena of an Art Therapist trained in the UK using an autoethnographic approach to studying her own experience of the different cultures and how that relates to art therapy. As the International Journal of Art Therapy, I believe it is fitting that we publish this work. I hope it may help Art Therapists look back on our own trainings and the relationships between our cultural backgrounds and the interpretations/use of our learning. The article by Brolles et al. (2017) springs to mind as an example in this journal where the cultural context is very different from what we may have experienced as students, particularly in the UK. In future it may be necessary for Art Therapists to have sophisticated understandings of the potentially very diverse cultural contexts in which Art Therapy may be delivered – so I am grateful to this author for giving us a well-considered perspective on UK-based training: this should be helpful in considering Art Therapy when it is developed in new contexts.

The article by Dafna Regev and Rotem Patishi uses experimental and quantitative methods to elucidate the relationships between art, child and parent in joint drawing tasks. It represents another example of a measured evaluation approach used in the study of Art Therapy, as can be seen in other articles in this journal such as those by Wood, Low, Molassiotis, and Tookman (2013) and Zubala, Macintyre, and Karkou (2017). In that respect, it offers a structure to and perspective on the phenomena of art creation which can enrich other approaches and clinical experience. This work should add to the related body of work on Dyadic Art Therapy, which itself relates to current and growing interest in attachment ideas.

Susan Hogan, David Sheffield and Amelia Woodward give a literature review of arts and Art Therapy within the context of antenatal and postnatal care. This represents an important contribution to the Art Therapy literature in an area previously not much covered in recent IJAT:Inscape publications. It should be a rich source of knowledge for anybody engaging in or considering work in this area. It suggests that, while further research may be necessary, there may be a place for the use of art in the therapeutic support of this client group.

Tim Wright and Tanya Andrew offer a description of an Art Therapy pilot in home-based interventions. The strengths and difficulties of such interventions are considered – such as their often short-term nature. As some of us may have experienced in clinical practice, the condensed timeframe can create positives as well as negatives in the therapeutic process. The article also describes the practical and management issues which Art Therapists may face in such situations and as such should be useful to others who are embarking or may embark on such work.

On a more general note, 2017 has been IJAT:Inscape’s first year of producing four issues. The plan is for this way of publishing the journal to continue. I hope that readers will continue to enjoy the new format with the two hard copies per year.