Keely Kolmes, PsyD, who commented on Cathy Malchiodi’s recent post regarding art therapists on facebook, wrote a wonderful entry on guidelines to consider when a therapist has a facebook page for either friendship or business purposes. I strongly suggest that anyone maintaining an internet presence on social networking sites consider following Kolmes’ suggestions.
Facebook Fan Pages for Therapists
In a recent article for Psychology Today by Cathy Malchiodi, one of art therapy’s most prolific writers, the idea of having a facebook fan page for one’s private practice is discussed. I agree, there is something distasteful about having a fan page for your private practice, but that wasn’t what grabbed my attention.
I was taken aback when I read about the art therapist who posted artwork and video footage of a client’s session (a minor) on their fan page.
My initial reaction to reading Cathy’s article is; yes, posting unedited 1:1 artx sessions of a minor, with consent, is pushing the ethics of our profession out of my comfort zone. After doing a search in facebook to find the fan page (not hard to do if you’re willing to invest a little time), this feeling was only highlighted. Admittedly I only watched the first 2 videos, but each time I heard the therapist ask the child to “look at the camera” I felt the session’s integrity was compromised. That being said, I’m also happy this happened and that Cathy wrote about it so that a dialogue can be opened within the (art) therapy community.
I have been very cautious about protecting the rights of the clients I work with, especially when it comes to this blog. I do write tidbits regarding artx directives I’ve implemented successfully, but I have never once included the artwork of the clients on this blog despite the fact that many have consented to allow their artwork to be published through any media source (i.e., film, print, computer image). The reason I have not included their artwork, which would no doubt add to the comprehension of the directive written about in the post, is that I just plain don’t feel comfortable with it. However, I intend to write either a journal article or present at a future AATA conference featuring those same directives and art pieces. Why am I comfortable accepting the consent of the clients I work with for print or lecture publishing but not for electronic publishing?
Perhaps it has something to do with accessibility. Anyone can google a facebook fan page or some key words and be directed towards, for example my blog and the potential artx images discussed above. Not everyone, however, would take the time to become an AATA member and gain access to its journal, go to a University library searching for an article or attend a conference. I’m operating under the assumption that the people who are taking interest in the artwork and directives are art therapists or other help professionals who are seeking training in art therapy, not just the random person stringing several words together in their search bar.
Another thought: Judith Rubin has made some fabulous videos that include children creating artwork during art therapy sessions. If her video were aired on PBS (maybe it already has?) or if it were posted on her web page for all to access, would I feel an ethical violation took place? Certainly not. Then why am I so uncomfortable with videos and artwork being posted on facebook fan pages?
Hanging In There
Sorry for the small amount of posts this month. I’ve been struggling with some health issues, similar to what happened in January. More artx posts once things settle down.
Robots vs. Rothko
Forbes has dedicated a series of articles on artificial intelligence (AI). One article in particular, Robots vs. Rothko by Margaret A. Boden discusses how AI has helped further the understanding of creativity (although there still is much remaining to be discovered).
Amazingly, according to the article, a computer has already generated its first US patent, has created music pieces akin to that of Mozart and artwork shown alongside Rothko in Washington DC. Although AI at this point has difficulty achieving all forms of creativity and making it meaningful, AI’s abilities will improve and we’ll gain more insight about ourselves and what makes us tick.
In other words, humans will continue creating technology in our own image, vastly changing our understanding of what makes us human. As art therapists, I believe it’s our responsibility to continue learning about the newest theories and knowledge, even if that knowledge is coming from technological sources that seem intimidating or frightening. We must then carefully consider the implication of what is learned, applying new findings to our understanding of art, creativity and psychological healing. We cannot allow ourselves to be stuck in 20th century theory or shy away from the realities of the 21st century, which should be shaping the theories of what we do when we practice art therapy with our clients or conceptualize new art therapy research.