Art therapy is important for certain individuals
When most people think of therapy they think of sitting, or lying down in a futon while they talk to a person who most likely has glasses on across the room. They tell this person their struggles for the week and the person at the other end of the room usually has some type of solution or fix to their problems. Art therapy is different to this, it uses art along with a care plan a therapist has made for their client. There are several ways to misinterpret art therapy from believing that unqualified therapists who believe that the mere creation of art is art therapy is able to effectively give a wholesome experience for their client ;to believing that art therapy can be done using Ai. If a therapist is unqualified to help their patient or gives advice that is counterintuitive to modern therapeutic doctrines such as the modern self help jonura then this can not be considered therapy. Art therapy is intended to use therapy to deconstruct either past trauma or emotions, and using a computer program to bypass this would not result in progress but further confusion as the emotion displayed in the piece is a hollow representation of that person’s true expression.
Tactile therapy is very important to the growth of patients that perhaps have trouble expressing their emotions or have developmental issues. If a patient is in an environment that allows them to focus on another priority instead of their emotions it can help them to allow their emotions to flow more freely. Thus the method is crucial to their recovery plan the therapist has compiled for them. Messing up this routine may worsen the effectiveness of treatment. ( this view was cultivated through my talks with abbie)
Though there are several types of art therapy some not even falling in the traditional definition of art therapy. Abbie Kasoff The current Chief Executive director of the organization says it with clay describes art therapy as Therapy with a specific treatment plan that involves art. She goes on to state that “art with a therapeutic approach” isn’t art therapy. That art therapy must involve someone with a master’s degree in art therapy, though this requirement is different in all 50 states. Art with a therapeutic approach such as coloring with an adult coloring book isn’t exactly what counts as art therapy. Art with a therapeutic approach or AWTA is what most people think of when they hear about art therapy because it fits the idea of what art is for people who may not care about it. That art is something only used to relax, that it’s always fun, or that it’s easy. But art can be used in several different ways and can invoke feelings of grief, pain and understanding. And when exploring these complex emotions it is important to have someone who is equipped to help get through the feelings, a sentiment that Kasoff also strongly expressed. If such a person is not there with the patient then they may have trouble navigating their emotions and the patient suffers because the person they trusted with healthy exploring their emotions has been ineffective it may create a new problem. It could leave the patient worse off as they may refrain from exploring their emotions with therapy again.
Another idea that may clash with the central thesis of this paper is the idea that digital media can be introduced into art therapy and have no real drawbacks. This idea may be true for some people but may also leave others behind. For those people say, those with trouble with anxiety when talking with people, it would actually do more harm than good.
A study conducted by frontiers in psychology discussed the use of digital media in art therapy in the future. Concluding with the sentiment that digital art therapy would be helpful as it would be used to reach more people. While this sentiment is true in practice, a core component of therapy and especially art therapy is the human connection to both the art and to the therapist and part of that would be lost with creating and talking through a screen. If art therapy is used for those with communication issues, and let’s say that one of those people were to use digital art therapy it wouldn’t be as effective. They can simply hang up the phone if they get overwhelmed instead of having the therapist being in the same room as them and helping to get to the root of their emotions. The core part of their therapy is messed up and may put them off track. Even someone who is used to routine may be affected by digital therapy in a negative way, of course with traditional art therapy it exists in a specific location and that patient may have trouble getting to that particular location due to weather or a natural disaster, this would still be the case with digital media. It breaks the idea that digital art therapy can be done anywhere through video calls. Even if the video aspect is not there and the patient is in the room with the therapist the app the art is done on may crash or perhaps the therapist or the patient forgot to charge the device, this could cause more frustration because the patient paid the therapist for art therapy for part of the day and due to circumstances out of their control they are unable to get their treatment. This type of therapy isn’t accessible if the person lives in an area with trees or forgets to charge their device. And while yes, charging their device would also be an effective way to build a routine. It’s ultimately leading to a less effective session due to the many problems that could be faced through digital.
If the accessibility of this type of therapy is offset by the effectiveness of the particular method of art where a core component is to make it more effective then is it worth it.
References
Abbie Kasoff phone discussion that took place for about 30 minutes
Zubala, A., Kennell, N., & Hackett, S. (2021, April 8). Art therapy in the Digital World: An integrative review of current practice and Future Directions. Frontiers in psychology. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8060455/
The Gamer 2.0
SleepyCat
Coffee Lover 03
doglover7025
Snowman10
excellentstudent27
Gymrat
hockeyfan
holistic25
ilovebeesss
ilovemydog
The Gamer
Naturechild101
BreakingBad45
ravensfan8
temporal111
thatpersonoverthere
toetio
username1132005
Calm&Patient
webbwrestler135
Counterintuitive Spring 2024 
I can try to rewrite some of this tonight for about 30 minutes.
LikeLike
I realize that it would be better to work more points of my opponent to my argument, and to perhaps find a better way to cite my talk with Abbie.
LikeLike
I’m had some trouble with this rebuttal argument, because i was a bit confused, can you give me an hour feedback.
LikeLike
A little guidance, please, TPOT, before I dive in.
What, of all the feedback I’ve given you so far, was most helpful?
Do you want a general overview of the effectiveness of your argument? Or specific advice on how to organize your paragraphs? Or sentence-level advice like the revisions I’ve provided at your Causal argument?
Or something else?
LikeLike
yes, I want to know if my argument was effective throughout, and if I can still strengthen it.
LikeLike
Before I take a close look at your Rebuttal argument, TPOT, I notice it begins with the never-satisfying “most people” approach.
A strong Rebuttal is your chance to convince your readers that you have information to refute your MOST IMPRESSIVE rival for the hearts and minds of your audience.
“Most people” doesn’t qualify for that job. When you argue against “common knowledge,” you’re only re-stating your thesis. You’ll find yourself wondering “Why do I feel as if I’m just doubling down on my Definition and Causal claims?” The Rebuttal will feel like needless repetition.
The Worthy Opponent solve that problem by giving your argument focus. You find and refute the problems you find in the “opposition view.”
Start with a search for “art therapy” +ineffective
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C31&q=%22art+therapy%22+%2Bineffective&btnG=
There may not be a LOT of critics of art therapy, but you WILL find plenty of “surveys of surveys” at Google Scholar. Academics love to pore over a dozen or a hundred earlier studies looking for trends. Included in the batch, they’ll have to consider and report on a range of opinions including: “Art Therapy is God’s gift to schizophrenics” and “Art Therapy is a fraud,” with “Art Therapy is not as effective as advertised” in between.
In there, you’ll find someone to strenuously disagree with.
That’s my best strategic advice.
OK. I’m about 15 minutes into my time without even considering your actual text.
Let’s take a look at some paragraphs.
LikeLike
—You’re making a clandestine Definition/Categorical claim here, TPOT. You can make it work, but you have to be upfront about it. What you mean is: “Many critics of therapy simply don’t understand the process.” The followup claim is, “EVEN MORE critics of Art Therapy have NO IDEA how the process works.”
—Totally unnecessary sentence. Get to the situation that matters.
—You’re almost one paragraph in and we have NO IDEA that your topic is Art Therapy, or that you believe in it, or that you are here to refute the best arguments of a critic of AT. I’d be tempted to bail if I were your reader.
—We are now SO FAR from “Critics of Art Therapy are misguided” that I don’t see how you’re going to get there.
—The only rebuttal I see here is that you criticize the “everyman’s view” of traditional therapy, which has little relevance to the “everyman’s view” of Art Therapy. THAT at least would be relevant. “Most people who hear the words art therapy picture adults with a coloring book or sitting in a circle whacking tambourines.”
—This claim, that “distracting the patient” by occupying their hands to let the unconscious bubble up gives me goosebumps it’s so persuasive. But it’s not a REBUTTAL argument until there’s a critic who doesn’t get it, or who discounts it, or who thinks it happens only once in a blue moon.
—The “messing up” comment serves no purpose that I can see.
—She certainly is, and you’re welcome. 🙂
—But what her insight needs here is a citation. Start your paragraph with something like, “According to licensed Art Therapist and recognized innovator in her field, Abbie Kasoff of Say It With Clay, in our phone interview: SUMMARY.”
—This is an “arguing from weakness” approach, TPOT. You don’t have to resort to this.
—If you were at all confident (your Ideal Reader is thinking ((so am I))), you would make bold, clear claims instead of resorting to Rhetorical Questions. You’d say it ISN’T, instead of asking if IT IS, and you’d back it up with your evidence.
—As it stands, no one has accused the entire field of art therapy of ineffectiveness in any of your essays. Only YOU are suggesting that it exists.
—To make this a REFUTATION argument, you’d need a credible critic whose critique is “The Art Therapy model is useless in contemporary society where physical closeness is next to impossible. If it can’t be done over Zoom, it’s irrelevant.”
—Against THAT criticism you could offer the simple “Lack of convenience is no argument against effectiveness” refutation.
—Need an example of how that works? “Driver training is inconvenient. But no serious person would claim that Zoom instruction is MORE EFFICIENT than sitting in the driver’s seat next to an instructor while executing a K-turn.”
—Regarding the instructors, in case their success rate is in question, “Yes, there are bad driving instructors, but that doesn’t eliminate the need for driving instruction.”
Are you getting the idea that Rebuttal Arguments are severely disabled by the lack of a targeted opponent, ThatPersonOverThere?
Good.
Need more help?
LikeLike
Significant improvements, TPOT.
Regraded.
LikeLike