Conference Paper: A Brief History of Art Therapy in Scotland by Susan Hogan.
Who was the first art therapist in Scotland? The answer to this question depends on how one is willing to define art therapy. In the 19th Century private asylums employed artists and musicians to work with those incarcerated as ‘mad'. Engagement in the arts was part of the social norm for middle class ladies in particular. Private asylum patients also had the opportunity to take dancing lessons and attend parties and balls. These activities, along with needlework for female patients, were all regarded as contributing an air of normalcy, which was thought to be curative. Working class patients, on the other hand, were more likely to be offered farming work in the asylum gardens, and troublesome or fractious patients were often given very heavy work in the asylum laundries.
So, the therapeutic potential of the arts was being used in private hospitals long before the term ‘art therapy' was coined. At the Crichton Royal Hospital, for example, W.A.F. Browne appointed artists to work with patients as early as 1847.[1] He believed that ‘when engaged in drawing an amelioration' in the patient's condition takes place and that such ‘occupation is prescribed, not merely as in itself a means of cure, but as a preparative to all other attempts to remove mental disease'.[2] This is a strong claim, indeed, for the usefulness of art; it may be argued that these remarks illustrate a departure from the use of the arts as a civilising social occupation for middle class clientele, to the development of the distinctive notion of art as medicine. Key points in the above quotation are that it was seen both as a cure in its own right and as ‘a preparative to all other attempts to remove mental disease'. This phrase clearly indicates that participation in an art activity was thought able to ‘remove mental disease.' Perhaps one can argue that art as therapy is born in Scotland here.
In 1847 W.A.F. Browne is quite explicit saying, ‘Drawing has been prescribed as medicine in four cases, and appeared curative in two.' In 1852 he wrote that painting constituted an instrument for the ‘removal of disease' and he gives the example of, ‘a mind [that] has recently grown up to its former stature, and to comparative strength, under the revived cultivation of a taste in drawing. This inspiration was drawn from the example of associates, who converted the public room into a studio... covered the walls with mementos of their taste and talents, and gave to the pursuits of asylum life, a tone, and elegance, which is at all times desirable.'
Whist the references to ‘tone' and ‘elegance' suggest that cathartic paint throwing did not constitute part of the artistic opportunities of the day, the fundamental idea of a studio space, in which patients could become absorbed in artistic work, is not an essentially unfamiliar one.
The moral tone of discussion about the arts is distinctive, but not unfamiliar to students of art, or regular gallery goers, as works of arts are still often treated with reverence today and many art galleries are still characterised by hushed voices and a contemplative, almost religious atmosphere. Browne believed that ‘elevated' activities were more curative so the fine arts were well regarded. Even when a cure did not accompany such artistic undertaking, the art works themselves were thought to ‘show how near an approach is made to excellence and reason, and how many must be stolen from languor and misery by such pursuits.'[3] The art objects themselves are conceptualised as being potentially curative through a process of moral contagion. In other words, mere contact with such art work was seen as able to elevate the spirits.
Some patients are compelled to make art works it seems, and will use found materials if art materials are not to hand. Sometimes hospitals merely tolerated this, and sometimes they actively supported patients in this compulsive need for such self expression. One such example was that of Adam Christie admitted to the Royal Montrose Mental Hospital in 1901, who, even though the hospital was highly regulated, was given his own studio and worked for many years making paintings and sculpting in stone. This type of art work has been dubbed art brut or ‘raw art'.[4] In 1946 Edward Adamson described coming across this sort of art:
‘When I visited the locked wards for the more severely disturbed, I was handed pieces of lavatory paper, on which were crude drawings sketched out with the charred end of a matchstick... I noticed that some of the residents in these wards had made little dolls from scraps of rags, which they cherished. One woman... made her own [clothes] out of hessian, which she decorated with odd strands of wool. All these activities seemed to be in response to a very strong inner creative urge.'[5]
Another, and rather different, strand of art therapy development in Scotland is represented by what one may dub broadly a ‘therapeutic community experiments'. Ruth and David Wills were to move to Peebles where Barnes House was established in 1937, as a community which worked with an ethos of shared responsibility and self-government. It was set up to house ‘maladjusted boys', referred to at the time as ‘unbilletable evacuees' from Edinburgh.[6] It was established by Quakers with financial assistance from the Edinburgh Corporation and Peebles County Council. The art studio, run mainly by Ruth, offered three types of painting activity. The first was called ‘imaginative' painting with watercolours. Pots of paint were arranged in the middle of tables, and those who wished to paint were given a brush and paper and encouraged to go ahead. David Wills who wrote about their work said of their approach:
‘It did seem to us that imaginative painting with water colours would provide greater cathartic opportunities... There was no instruction, no guidance, all suggestions about what to paint were firmly withheld. And there were some fascinating results aesthetically as well as therapeutically'.
Wills was amazed by the enthusiasm and energy the children were able to bring to this work. Wills noted that many of the painters:
‘carry out a running commentary on their work... "This is a giant with a big stick..." Half a dozen boys might be chattering away like this, quite oblivious to everything and everyone except the world they are creating. It was fascinating to watch the imagination growing; or to be more accurate, to watch the boys overcome their fear of giving it free expression.'
Wills thought that this type of free painting illustrated to what degree emotional conflicts were being resolved, as well as providing a useful means of catharsis. He would often observe a change in the boys' paintings. In his book on Barnes he gives many examples, including one boy whose works contained an:
‘indescribable jumble of crosses, knives, daggers, explosions, bombs, aeroplanes, all in the most lurid or the most sickly of colours. Week after week these dreadful monstrosities were produced but very slowly, as Ginger began to get rid of some of his resentment - in paint and in other ways provided by Barnes - his paintings gradually began to be slightly more coherent in design and less horrific in content'.
Another technique used in art therapy at Barnes House was self-portraiture. No matter how unlike the boy who painted the portrait in terms of physical likeness, the portrait always indicated ‘the salient features of his character, or his mood at the time', Wills asserted.'[7]
The third technique used was oil painting. Wills felt that this was particularly useful for children in need of ‘discipline', and noted that some children who were not good at watercolours could exceed in oil painting.
The role of the art therapist (usually Ruth) was to create an atmosphere of freedom in the art room (within certain limits). They would not tolerate fighting or the application of paint to surfaces other than paper. Technical advice might be given but the art therapist was never to succumb to a request from a child asking what he should paint; this freedom coupled with praise was though sufficient and they resisted adopting a more structured approach (though they were aware of other approaches to children's art, such as that of Marie Paneth or Cizek). After the close of the Second World War Ruth and David Wills moved to Birmingham and did not, to my knowledge, ever live in Scotland again.
Other early Scottish developments were the National Association of Prevention of Tuberculosis (NAPT) and British Red Cross schemes which had developed out of the pioneering work done by Adrian Hill. Many sanatoria in Scotland were visited by ‘cultural visitors' in the 1940s and 1950s who engaged in a variety of activities ranging from the hanging of reproductions of art works in wards, to encouraging bed-ridden patients to make art works, and organising art competitions.[8]
The first art therapy training in Scotland started in October 1992. It was based at Edinburgh University Settlement (EUS) and externally validated by Glasgow Caledonian University. Although I was one of those originally employed to teach on the course (employed by EUS), and I co-wrote the validation document, it is a little known fact, because she is modest, that the course was actually established by Michelle Gunn. It was Michelle Gunn who, whilst managing the EUS mental health programme, found seed-funding to support the development of the training programme and it is her tenacity which found the programme's original home at Edinburgh University Settlement. She should therefore, be noted as its founder.
This paper was delivered in June 2005 at Celebrating Art Therapy in Scotland. All Scotland Day. The British Association of Art Therapists, Overseas House, Princes Street, Edinburgh. 25.06.05
Biographical Note
Susan Hogan is currently Professor in Cultural Studies & Art Therapy at the University of Derby.
Bibliography
Adamson, E. 1984. Art as Healing. London: Coventure.
Hogan, S. 2001. Healing Arts. The History of Art Therapy. London: Jessica Kingsley Press.
Waller, D. 1991. Becoming a Profession. London: Routledge.
Wills, D. 1945. The Barnes Experiment. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Endnotes
[1] Hogan 2001:43.
[2] Hogan 2001:44.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Hogan 2001:46
[5] Adamson 1984:9.
[6] Hogan 2001:296.
[7] Wills 1945: 95.
[8] Hogan 2001:152-154.
