What Next? • 271in the field, at the possible expense of the unique thing we have to offer: Art. Some spoke of
soul and some spoke of systems, and many spoke of the sickness of our times, of the crisis
in our world, and of the desperate hunger for the kind of order and meaning and sense of
effectiveness potentially available through the making of art.
In a subsequent issue of Art Therapy there was a follow-up piece by Jim Young of Santa
Fe, New Mexico—with its rich indigenous tradition of a culture in which art is not only
alive but central. He reflected on what leaders of both past and present generations had
written, reminding us about where art therapy comes from. He offered the delightfully
wishful vision that, “Art therapists of the future will play a major role in bringing art back
to the communities as a healing force.” Young called his article “The Re-enchantment of
Art Therapy.”^4 My only quarrel with him is that, for many of us, art therapy never lost its
enchantment. Parenthetically, I now know that it certainly had for some of my colleagues
(Kapitan, 2003).
The Future Panel of 1979 was in the student section of the conference, addressed to those
who hold the future of any field in their hands. When I recently reread what I wrote 28
years ago, I was certain that we had come a long way, since my nightmares of 1979 no longer
apply. In the area of art therapy theory, they consisted of “half digested hodgepodges, built
on poorly-understood and inadequately-integrated ideas from various sources,” much less
common now than they were then. In the practice of art therapy, my reactions ranged “from
deep admiration to horrified dismay.” I am pleased to be able to say that there is consider-
ably less sloppy thinking and careless work these days, though a little knowledge can still be
a very dangerous thing in untrained hands.
In 1979 I had also written, “If we can somehow make the clinical skills of those who
practice more synchronous with the power of their modality, I predict that we will not only
be extremely successful, but also highly respected. There will then be no need to acquire
credentials in other fields, nor any economic or political pressure to do so, for the sophisti-
cation and effectiveness of a qualified art therapist will be quite sufficient.”
Even though the training of art therapists today is far superior to what was available 30
years ago, recognition in the marketplace has taken more time than I had imagined. Yet,
while not quite there, we are nowhere near as far from achieving that goal as we were then.
Excellent training and a flexible registration procedure were not sufficient to open enough
doors. So it was necessary to create a national certification exam. So far, having a form of
credentialing objective enough to be relevant for licensure or insurance coverage indeed
seems to be leading to greater official recognition.
Art Therapy Has Much to Share
Art therapists have a great deal to contribute beyond direct work with identified patients.
In addition to being helpful in many alternative settings, especially “normal” ones, art ther-
apists have much to offer to colleagues in related fields. My psychoanalytic training, for
example, has been immensely helpful in all of my work. I have wanted to share these under-
standings with art therapists, as I did in my chapter for Approaches to Art Therapy (2 0 01).
I had thought of writing a book for psychoanalysts about the power of art and imagery
in analytically informed therapy. Instead, I ended up writing Artful Therapy, addressed to
mental health clinicians of varying theoretical orientations (Rubin, 2005a).
Riley (Riley & Malchiodi, 2004) made a similar observation about the relevance of art
therapy to systemic family therapy, noting how each enhances the other. Malchiodi (1998)
wrote a book called Understanding Children Through Their Drawings for social workers,
counselors, and other child therapists. Since then she has written other books to inform not