Provoking Thought for Someone Else’s Paper—A Critique of Berki’s “Art as Therapy? Therapy Through Art?”

Summary      

Marget Berki, a German writer and translator, seeks to convince his readers of the invalidity of Art Therapy in his 1996 article “Art as Therapy? Therapy Through Art?” Berki opens his article by starting at the beginning of Art Therapy’s life. He speaks about the early therapists lack of professional training and their ‘strange’ ideas, and how they ‘pretended’ to help people.  Berki then delves into his idea that Art in actuality causes problems instead of curing them. He brings up several suicidal artists and poets and asks us why art does not help them. He also tells us that most artists are on drugs while they are working on their projects, and that is when their best work is produced. The next section of his article covers the darker side of art as he moves into Nazi Germany and the ideas posed by Hitler and his counterparts. The main idea he stresses is that they believed they were composing art through their search for the perfect race. At this point he then delves deep into Nazi Germany and World War II. He spends a lot of time here talking about how Nazi Germany tried to hide their ‘art’ and how eventually the world fought and defeated them. Berki then talks about modern art and how artists were forced to make beautiful art that was against their nature. After this brief history of modern art, Berki closes his article by saying “And this was probably the intention of the therapeutic endeavor of the eighties.”

Evidence

            In most cases, when someone brings up a controversial point or argument against a given view, it’s customary for them to back up their claim with actual evidence and specific examples. Such is not the case with Berki’s argument against Art Therapy. Like a spider suspended from a web strand, Berki bases his argument on multiple controversial ideas and then lets them hang suspended without any visible support. The first of such ideas is the idea that Art Therapy is an occupation of ‘strange ideas’ and people who ‘pretend’ to help others. This would be a decent claim if only Berki backed it up with some examples of strange ideas or cases when people had been falsely helped. Instead examples such as these fill his paper like awkward silences on a blind date. Another way that his paper fails to deliver is his false claims such as “Most artists consumed coffee, alcohol or other drugs excessively to get the ultimate out of themselves; periodically the effects drove them to social excesses.” This statement is clearly a grouping of all artists into the same category as schizophrenia patients like Van Gogh which is a stereotype, which our common knowledge should tell us is wrong. Berki uses this example to ask why, if art is so calming and therapeutic, these artists ended up with such extreme problems. A valid question, but still one that is slanted, in that Berki never considers the opposite end of the spectrum, the successful, healthy artists.

The third area of evidence that Berki presents seeks to show art in a poor light in order to further derail the readers belief in Art therapy’s uselessness. The example he uses to achieve this si that Hitler and the Nazi party believed that their search for the perfect race and their subsequent actions of genocide were an art form. According to Berki they believed they were doing art, thus he uses a logical fallacy: Because Hitler thought he was making art, and Hitler was bad, therefore Art must be bad. Because of this and other areas that lack sufficient evidence to support his claims, Berki’s paper fails to deliver sufficient evidence to support his claims.

Assumptions

            In his article, Berki makes several large assumptions. The first is that his audience knows something of Art therapy and that having learned of it, they automatically will feel that it is a bunch of ‘untrained professionals’ that actively pursue their ‘strange ideas’. Since the main focus of his article is Art Therapy, his belief is that we as readers must know something about it is a good assumption, however the second half of his belief is unfounded especially when he gives us no examples of the ‘strange’ ideas that he is so actively speaking against. His second assumption is that we know enough about famous art and artists, to understand the allusions he makes to drug abuse, and psychological disorders and that we too will attribute artists to this kind of self abuse. Most people who have reached the level of reading that this article is written in have at some time in their life been exposed to artists, such as Van Gogh, who fit in this description making Berki’s assumption that we understand his reference good, however his stereotyping of all artists into this category is poor and reminiscent of a childhood insult.

The final large assumption that he incorporates into his paper is that we have studied and become horrified by Hitler and World War II. Berki relies heavily on this assumption for most of his paper. His belief is that art and what the Nazis were trying to accomplish are so close that we should look at art as a horrible demon that couldn’t possibly help anyone. This assumption, unlike his previous assumptions, was his best and helped support his argument against art therapy. By stating this idea Berki forces us to think about what we really know about art and if it really is such a beautiful thing.

Clarity of Language

            Berki is a German writer who has translated his article into English in order to reach more readers. In terms of the clarity of his translation and the presentation of his ideas, all but his conclusion are done well and flow from one idea to the next. His firm belief of the ridiculousness of Art Therapy is undeniably stated in his first paragraph:

 “The characteristic of these self-proclaimed art therapists was that they did not apply psychoanalytic, behaviorist or socio-psychological methods because most of these so-called 'therapists' were not at all professionally trained. They were artists who had the strange idea that painting, drawing, making pottery and batik printing are useful for everyone and has therapeutic effects. Any creative realization would supposedly strengthen the personality and by achieving this goal the therapy was considered effective and successful.”

By using the phrases ‘so called’, ‘supposedly’ and ‘not at all professionally trained”, we are not left in any doubt as to his feelings towards art therapy.

Another idea that is clearly stated in his article is that all artists are substance abusers. Although a gross stereotype, this idea is clearly stated and backed up by not only artists, but also writers own comments leaving us to wonder if art is so beautiful after all.

Unfortunately we lose the beautiful flow and firm ideas in Berki’s conclusion. He suddenly takes a random turn into the world of modern art. One can almost see where he was trying to go with this change, but altogether the message is lost in the jumble of unclear ideas about modern art and its relation to art therapy.

Conclusion

            Placing sarcasm aside, I would have to say that Berki’s argument that art is more harmful than therapeutic is an interesting idea that developed further and with more evidence would be a convincing move against the world of Art Therapy. However as a whole his article lacks the defining punch of statistics, evidence and examples to really bring home his idea. “Art as Therapy? Therapy Through Art” serves only as a thought provoker that can lead to a better paper written by someone else.

References

Berki, M. (1996) Art as therapy? Therapy through art. Retrieved from http://www.brock.uni-wuppertal.de/Schrifte/English/Therapy.html