ABSTRACT
There is little critical literature concerning art therapy training emanating from British authors, except by the author herself (1987: 200–2) and incorporated into more general articles on the theory and practice of art therapy (Birtchnell 1976, 1980). There is currently a major review by BAAT’s Training and Education Sub-Committee of training taking place and this is the first since the ‘core course’ was introduced in 1978. In ‘Art therapy and adolescence’, I have suggested that current art therapy training may expose students to contradictions similar to those of social work students (Cannan 1972: 248), resulting in confusion and apparently ‘adolescent’ behaviour in the profession. Birtchnell has persistently challenged the dominance of art graduates in the profession, believing that they exaggerate the importance of art in art therapy and use such expressions as ‘the therapeutic value of art’. He believes that the insistence of the professional association on art-graduate status is nothing more than political expedience (1977).
