Creators

The images in the Online Exhibition have been co-created by participants in the workshops hosted by the research team.

Image-making was used to spark discussions, illustrate the creative process and the sense of ownership one might feel towards images they have either created or contributed to making.

Image-making took place in 3 different workshops each involving up to 12 persons. One workshop gathered lawyers, another gathered registered art therapists and a third gathered Arts & Health professionals. Some of the creators’ names feature in the list of participants in the project. Others have asked to remain anonymous.

Four activities were undertaken that resulted in participants creating various images, either alone or with others.* In between each activity, participants were asked questions and readily answered them, reflecting carefully on their thoughts, emotions and experience.

These generated ideas on ownership and possession in relation to pieces of art, created individually or collectively. Much time was dedicated to the reasons why a person might feel an artwork is theirs, or why they might feel less attached to it. In doing so, the participants reflected on what makes a piece of art theirs, focusing on the drawings produced during the workshop. Participants also reflected on their professional experiences of art making and ownership in the very different contexts of Art Therapy, Arts & Health and the Law.

Reasons given related to their input, their connection to the subject, the time spent drawing, the time they held their drawing afterwards, the inspiration for the piece, the direction given, the direction followed (or direction purposefully not followed), their skill and experience, the setting within which the art was made, the rules within which the art was made, the touch applied, among many things.

In each of these workshops, lead investigator Karen Huckvale guided attendees through three exercises or ‘tasks’ of image-making. Karen forewarned participants that these tasks were not about making ‘pretty’ images but were used as a prompt or token to start conversations. She highlighted that time and materials were limited, and that as a result, no finished, high-quality pieces were expected. Karen gave re-assurances that none of the tasks were aimed at reproducing or ‘imitating’ the process of art therapy; none of the exercises or subjects aimed to encourage disclosure of intimate personal experiences.

* The workshop hosting lawyers completed three of the four image-making tasks due to time constraints.

Creators’ Thoughts on Their Sense of Ownership

Art Therapists
The key themes arising from the above were: time, direction, relationship and currency (or value). 

Time is relevant in terms of the time it takes to create the art, the number of sessions the art represents, the time spent on a work and the thought that has gone into it. This notion also relates to the time that the client then holds the art, the time he/she connects to it before it is stored away. Finally, the time that the art therapist holds the stored art is also to be considered. Might that possession over time transfer ownership?

Where there is direction from the art therapist in terms of what is drawn when, how, using what materials must be considered, although in this workshop most participants felt that the personal touch of the artist-client, the connection they created between the art and themselves was more important in identifying ownership.

In relation to ownership, the theme of value also arose. Monetary value was touched upon, but artwork can also be used in other forms of currency, be it to recognise the status of the creator of the artwork, as an object of barter or in terms of the value attributed to the relationship it creates between therapist and patient. On occasion, the client may choose to give an artwork to a friend or a family member to signify that they are giving something of value. This is ultimately a gift of themselves which may symbolize attention, affection, love, effort, time spent or a demonstration of skills. For a child or inpatient it may be the only thing they have which they can give at that time. Linked to this might be the value of holding on to artwork on behalf of the client, demonstrating their worth in the attachment the therapist shows.

Arts & Health Practitioners
The key themes arising in this workshop were: context, direction and time.

Context was one of the key themes arising from the second workshop. As artists, their work is important (and defining) to them, and therefore they found it very difficult to ‘own’ the pieces created in the workshop. Repeatedly they agreed that these were pieces they made, either individually or with others, but that this does not make them their artworks. To them the context in which they were made was highly significant and the works represented exercises, under someone else’s direction, with little time for execution. They seemed to have little attachment to them.

Direction of the facilitator was thus thought of as important and most participants felt that the facilitator should be credited alongside the participants when displaying any piece. They further unanimously felt any piece should also describe the context, i.e. the exercise/direction given to them, the rules, times, materials, restrictions imposed on them.

Time was discussed in the context of anchoring a piece to a certain moment in time. Each piece represented where they were in that moment and the question then arose as to whether consent at that moment was enough, or if consent should be asked for again when concrete plans around a work emerged (e.g. at the time when the work might be considered for an exhibition). Further, the group wondered about when the request for consent should be made. Would such a request to exhibit stifle creativity if made before the art making is started? Or would it ensure that artists purposefully produce for an external public viewer, rather than finding themselves agreeing after the event to include highly personal art.

Lawyers
The key themes arising in this workshop were: authorship versus ownership, intellectual property vs physical asset, value, consent versus knowledge (informed consent).

These generated ideas on ownership, authorship and possession in relation to pieces of art, created individually or collectively. Much time was dedicated to the concepts of consent, knowledge and intellectual property. In doing so, the participants reflected on the differences between consent and informed consent, the timing when consent is requested, the ability of the person to give consent.

Interview Participants

Art therapy is private like a diary, whilst arts & health is public like a poem (Malcolm Learmonth). This quote highlights elegantly and succinctly an often fundamental difference between art therapy and arts & health. As part of this research project on who owns outsider art, we interviewed 6 participants who had previously taken part in art therapy, and 6 participants who had worked in an arts & health setting.

The participants who produced work in art therapy felt very strongly that any pieces made in that context were theirs. These were pieces they made in the safety of the therapy session; they were private to them. As a result the need for confidentiality was very important. Of course, as with a diary entry, they might later choose to a share one, some or all of their artwork with a larger public. However, significantly, it was not made with that objective in mind, and the participants had control of what and how it was shown.

The participants working in an arts & health setting distinguished clearly between the individual pieces created, which they felt were theirs, and any collective pieces, in relation to which they did not think they had control or ownership claims. Instead of consent, the important aspect was prior knowledge and understanding of the goal for the collective artwork. Conversely, for individual pieces made in an arts & health session that were not meant to be part of a larger collection, as with the art therapy group, control over how those pieces were used was important to the participants.

Below is a more detailed account of the interviewees’ thoughts, together with a number of quotes to highlight the findings.

Art Therapy Participants

Participants’ Engagement

Participants’ engagement varied significantly in time, with the shortest experience lasting 5 months, and the longest 10 years. Most were for a specific period of time (among those, the average time span was 1 year), although in one case art therapy was on-going.

All participants had made some of the artworks with the therapist. Some talked of “making art together”, whilst most viewed the therapist’s role as helping out.

All participants remembered the pieces they had made and all of them had taken at least some of them home. However, at home the pieces were not usually shared with anyone (“I have kept them to myself, they are my little thing!”), unless it was to a close and trusted family member. (“I have shown my mum a couple of images, but I have been quite careful.”)

In two cases, some pieces were hung up in the home for visitors to see, but without explaining their significance. (“Some are hanging in my house so can be seen by visitors, but without knowledge of what they represent.”) This highlights how in art therapy, much of the created artwork has the capacity of appearing to be about one thing, whilst actually representing something else (known as self-secret). For example, a picture drawn of a bunch of flowers might actually be about the participant’s family, with individual flowers representing different family members. To the participant the position of the flowers is important, whilst any viewer without that knowledge will simply see an aesthetically pleasing picture.

Consistently, all participants talked about how the art works were first held by the therapist for safekeeping. In all cases this had been discussed between them and agreed together. All participants stressed the importance of the pieces being held securely, ensuring confidentiality. (“The folder only had my initials, there were no initials or names on any of the pieces of work. It mattered that the pieces were anonymous.”). For most participants it was still important after the end of art therapy that that confidentiality was respected. (“Yes, it was important, and still is reassuring to know it was all in a safe place.”)

All those interviewed expressed that they felt strongly that the artworks created in session belonged to them. Those pieces were theirs to dispose of as they saw fit. (“They were mine, so it was up to me as to what happened with them.”)

Participants’ Thoughts on the Vignette

Next, the participants were asked to respond to a vignette that set out a usual art therapy process of making art pieces either with or in the presence of the therapist. To depersonalise matters, the questions concerned ‘Caroline’ who was in art therapy and how her art pieces should be dealt with.

When looking at the vignette, all participants transposed Caroline’s experiences with their own. For example, most suggested Caroline’s artwork be kept in the same location that they had indicated their artwork was kept (e.g. in a folder, in a cupboard, etc.) Significantly, all thought it important to stress that that choice must rest with the participant. (“This would be personal to Caroline.”)

This was the theme throughout the interviews. Participants felt very strongly that it must be the participant’s choice as to where the pieces are stored (“Wherever she would like them to be!”), what happens to them, or who sees them (“Yes, it is up to Caroline who sees them. It is her personal work, others might not understand why she drew those things.”).

All participants were very clear that what the art pieces represented or the quality of them was of no importance to the responses. (“No, all the pieces are important, because the person who made them, made them for a reason.”)

Participants also unanimously thought that prior consent was always needed, be it to show the pieces other professionals (“Yes, this is her private, personal work. She might understand that it is for the “white jackets”, the authoritative person who needs to see it, but consent should be sought before the start of the therapy.”), in a private setting (such as a hospital or waiting room), in a public setting such as a exhibition or on social media, or to family members. (“Yes, I think so, because her images are private to Caroline, it is personal to her. It might be even more emotional if shown to family. Most important to get her consent before putting it on social media” and “It is really important Caroline herself understands the possible consequences of sharing her image on social media.”)

This demonstrates again the clear understanding by participants that all the art created in an art therapy session is theirs, and that therefore their consent must be sought before the therapist can do anything with it. (“Yes, because Caroline needs to know that her art is being talked about.”)

Responses were divided when asked how, once consent had been sought, the pieces could be shown to others. There was no consensus for example as to whether the participant’s name should be mentioned (“Some might be happy to add their first name, others their surname, other to show images anonymously.”).

Providing meaning of the image and that it was made in art therapy also provoked very different responses, from those who thought it would be helpful (“I think a short sentence explaining the picture would be good, as long as Caroline is fine with it. As for the setting, it is more interesting to give it that context.”), to those who opposed that idea (“No, providing meaning would be even more intrusive… [if disclosing setting] the viewers might then be wondering what the therapy sessions were about, and what the hidden meaning of the images was.”)

When asked to think of good reasons for sharing art made in art therapy, the two main responses related to training future therapists, and to showing the benefits of art therapy to a wider audience. (“It shows what can be achieved by art therapy and to help research.”)

Negative consequences of sharing the art pieces related to both a risk of triggering previous negative emotions, or having to endure the (mocking or gossiping) gaze of the public. (“If something was produced that others found funny – if they were laughing at her, that would be particularly horrendous.”)

All participants felt that no matter what the context or the timing, consent was always needed. Ideally consent should be sought before any piece was made. (“…otherwise they might feel obliged.”) Most felt that even years later, it was important that the therapist speak to Caroline before a piece was used. (“But it is her personal artwork, so she will want know how it is being used, even after a number of years.”), although one participant questioned if this might trigger earlier emotions, and that therefore art should not be exhibited or used years later. (“… contacting them all that time later might trigger feelings or memories that might make them feel quite exposed.”)

Next, participants engaging in arts & health activities were questioned in a near identical manner. Changes were made to the interview questions only to accommodate the different setting.

Arts & Health Participants

Participants’ Experience

Half the participants had taken part in arts & health sessions over a period of several months (average of 6 months), whilst the other half had taken part over a longer period, stretching over years (average of 2 years).

Most had done individual pieces, whilst two participants had worked on large collective pieces. In most cases the pieces had been intended to decorate a place or venue (mainly hospital wards or communal buildings), and therefore had been seen by the public. Most participants were detached from these pieces. Whilst some kept a photograph for their own records, in all but one case, the participants had not seen the pieces since they were finished. (“I never see it, but I have a photograph.”)

Names of individuals were not included with the artworks, and participants were happy with that. (“No. I did not leave a signature. We simply had the name of the charity. I did not mind for my name not to be mentioned, in fact, I think I preferred it that way.”)

Participants knew from the start how the pieces would be used and that individuals would not be acknowledged. Having that prior information setting out the rules of engagement meant that all participants were satisfied with this. (“Yes, we all knew from the beginning that the art pieces were not going to leave the room, but that we could take a photo of our piece.”)

Whilst they did not claim individual ownership, they were proud of the collective pieces and had shown a photograph of the artworks to family and friends. The art pieces were also shown widely on social media platforms and participants were generally happy to do so.

However, two participants explicitly drew the line at showing the pieces they had drawn or participated in, when others might make money off the pieces they created, for example by using them in advertising campaigns. (“Yes, happy to display in public, I posted it on Facebook and Instagram, wouldn’t mind if it was copied or exhibited elsewhere, but if used for advertising, I would like to be asked permission.” and “If used for advertising, I would want money. I would not be too happy if they claimed it as their own.”)

Participants’ Thoughts on Vignette

Again, a vignette was presented and participants were asked to respond. The vignette described how collective and individual art might be created in an arts & health setting. To depersonalise matters, the questions concerned ‘Peter’ who drew pieces (both of generic shapes which he was asked to colour in using a pre-determined, limited colour palette, and of childhood and playing), which were then to some extent incorporated into larger collective pieces.

Participants were unsure when asked who should claim ownership for a collective piece, but all felt Peter should be involved in that collective decision. (“I think the facilitator should ask Peter! He has done some of the work, he has part of the decision making process.”)

Most participants felt that Peter’s individual images could only be shown with his consent, but there was consensus that the collective pieces could be shown with his prior consent and understanding of how the collective piece would be used. (“Again, before the work is made, it should have been discussed if Peter was happy, knowing what would become of it.”). In fact, one participant felt strongly that all participants would be betrayed if their collective work was not put on show. (“It would be a shame if nobody saw it. That would be worse! It is a collective piece of work and to not put it on show anywhere… that would be a backwards move…”)

Whilst participants acknowledged that all art created individually by Peter was of equal value (“It is all still essentially Peter’s artwork.”), it was seen that the childhood images were likely to be more personal to Peter. (“It is a matter of degrees. The childhood and playing images are likely to be sensitive, but there could be some shapes that had emotional resonance and might trigger emotions.”)

Participants felt that consent in relation to Peter’s individual art works should always be sought, including if the facilitator had improved or added to the pieces. In addition, Peter should be informed at the outset as to how his pieces would be integrated into the larger collective piece. (“Essentially it was Peter’s work at some point. He has made a contribution to the final work.”)

Whilst most participants thought that all those who participated had a right to be named (“Everybody who wants to be identified; all contributors and the facilitator, with consent.”), unanimously, all participants thought that Peter had the choice as to whether his name was listed. (“Peter’s name should be shown only with his permission and if he wants it shown in public. It is up to him.”)

If the arts & health setting should be mentioned with the piece, was held to be dependent on whether individual names were also added, because not all participants might want to be associated with the arts & health group. (“Broadly it is reasonable to have a mention of the arts & health setting, although if for example it is a prison setting, some people might not want their name attached to that, it depends and requires discussion.”)

Where no individual names were shown, it was felt that the arts & health setting would be a good thing, although again prior information should be given of the use and location of the artwork. (“Certainly if there was a physical exhibition, it would be natural [to explain the arts & health setting], but again, this should be discussed in the planning of it.”)

Participants thought that the main reason for showing art made in an arts & health setting was to allow for more art to be shown to the public at large, and to encourage others to take up art. (“The public might be interested, and it might encourage others to do something similar. It might inspire people.”) In addition, some participants felt it would enable the participants to share their creativity. (“It is valuing and validating people’s creativity and life experiences.”)

The participants talked of the tension between the desire to show their artwork, thus demonstrating their creativity and seeking validation through their work, but at the same time also fearing that exposure and the possibility of subsequent rejection. As a result, disadvantages of showing such art were seen to be that the public might not like the artwork and criticise those who made it. Especially where the arts & health context was mentioned, this might lead to a form of voyeurism. (“Some people might be understanding, but others could construe it differently. It might confirm their views that they have of people with mental health issues.”) Where names were included, it could lead to those participants feeling exposed. (“…they might criticise the artwork, which might be difficult to hear for Peter if he is vulnerable.”)

Participants had different opinions about whether a participant’s individual art piece could be shown in a different context or years later. Most thought it would require the consent of the individual (“Yes, even if he had given a general consent, as a matter of courtesy, it would be good to ask for his permission, as people’s feelings change over time.”), although in some cases, it was felt that an initial general consent was sufficient. (“There should be a generic permission sought at the beginning to cover for all other things.”)

Finally, in relation to the collective pieces, it was felt that the art might already be shown and therefore that consent at this point was no longer relevant. (“His art might already be out there on display in some form.”)