Atlas›Domain VIII · Creative & expressive arts therapies›Guide 039
Guide VIII-039

Dialogical painting

A 41 · L 33 · M 269 interventions in the Trinity explorer
Client cardCompare
[source: …] where a claim comes from[uncertain] not confirmed in a primary source[synthesis] the writer's reconstruction

1. Introduction

Version followed: German-language "dialogisches Gestalten / dialogisches Malen" as framed by Ruth Janschek-Schlesinger, Praxisbuch Dialogisches Gestalten. Kommunizieren mit künstlerischen Materialien (Hogrefe, 1st ed. 2019, 120 pp.), plus the dialogical-painting practice documented at Alanus University (Alfter, 2020). The separately published parent–child Joint Painting Procedure (Gavron, University of Haifa) is added as a related method in 4.9. Sources: the publisher's description gives (three components: making process, interaction between participants, verbal exchange afterwards; fields: therapy, pedagogy, supervision); the book and its "Blick ins Buch" preview PDF are not drawn on; the Joint Painting Procedure steps and scales are drawn from Gavron & Mayseless (2018); no founder of "dialogisches Malen" is established. Step-by-step procedure for 4.1–4.8 beyond the cited sources remains [synthesis]. [uncertain: Janschek-Schlesinger's exercises]

What it is. Dialogical painting is a group of procedures, not a single manualised therapy. Two or more people (client and client, client and therapist, couple, family members, team or group) make one shared picture together, mainly without words. The picture is the medium of the conversation: each person's marks answer the other's. A spoken exchange about what happened usually follows. [source: Hogrefe product page; Alanus "Dialogical Painting" report]

Founder and origin. No single founder is established. Some accounts name no founder; the Hogrefe page names no originator and uses the term dialogisches Gestalten (not dialogisches Malen); the term "dialogisches Malen" is attributed to no originator, and no source names a "Frick" as originator. Janschek-Schlesinger (2019) remains the only book-length method text, presented for therapy, pedagogy and supervision. The Alanus page describes a teaching project by Prof. Beatrice Cron (painting) and Oliver Hollatz and names no originator. German art-education literature describes joint picture-making as a continuous, mostly nonverbal exchange (Wichelhaus 1998; Klug 2005, both known only as cited in Zierhofer 2022; neither drawn on directly, so neither should be called the founder). A distinct, named and researched joint-painting method does have a known developer: the Joint Painting Procedure by Israeli art psychotherapist Tami Gavron (Tel-Hai College and University of Haifa), see 4.9. [source: Hogrefe; Alanus; Zierhofer 2022; Gavron & Mayseless 2018; University of Haifa CATRC page] [uncertain: origin of the German term]

How change is thought to happen. Materials act as carriers of communication. Topics that are hard to put into words become visible between people, and this opens new perspectives and solutions (Hogrefe description, paraphrased). In the shared picture, relational patterns show up as actions: who starts, who leads, who follows, who adapts, who covers whose marks, how space is shared. These patterns can then be seen, felt and talked about. The Alanus report frames this as entering a conversation "with and through the canvas". [source: Hogrefe; Alanus; "Wer führt?" worksheet]

2. Framework

The sources found give no formal phase model, session count or progression criteria. The following structure follows the three elements Janschek-Schlesinger's publisher lists (the making process, the interaction between participants, the verbal exchange afterwards) and adds practical detail. [source: Hogrefe] [synthesis for timings and criteria]

Format. Dyads (most common), small groups of 3 to 6 on one large surface, or a whole group on a wall or floor sheet. Usually one exercise inside an ordinary art-therapy or psychotherapy session, not a stand-alone course. Uses described: therapy, pedagogy, supervision (Hogrefe); art-therapy training (Alanus); school social learning ("Wer führt?"). [source: Hogrefe; Alanus; "Wer führt?"]

Phase A: Preparation and contract (5–10 min) [synthesis]

  • Goal: safety, consent and a clear frame.
  • Agree the rules (silence or not, one sheet, materials, time limit, how to stop), that nobody has to be "good at art", and that anyone can pause or stop.
  • Move on when each participant has agreed to the frame and knows the stop signal.

Phase B: Warm-up with materials (optional, 5 min) [synthesis]

  • Goal: lower anxiety about materials; each person tries their colours alone on a scrap sheet.
  • Move on when participants handle the materials without hesitation.

Phase C: Wordless shared making (10–30 min) [source: Alanus; "Wer führt?" (15 min for the shared-pen version)]

  • Goal: the nonverbal dialogue itself. No prior plan; partners respond to each other's impulses (Alanus).
  • The therapist observes the process (sequence, leading and following, use of space, overpainting, pauses) and keeps time.
  • End at the agreed time, when the picture feels finished to all, or earlier on the stop signal.

Phase D: Closing act inside the picture (optional, 2–5 min) [source: "Wer führt?" variation]

  • Goal: a joint decision without words, e.g. agreeing a title, motto or "artist name".

Phase E: Looking and verbal exchange (10–30 min) [source: Hogrefe; "Wer führt?" debrief questions; Alanus guiding questions]

  • Goal: translate what happened into words: experience of leading and following, feeling overlooked or met, satisfaction with the result, links to the person's relationships.
  • Move on when each person has said something about their own experience (not only about the partner).

Phase F: Closure and the picture's fate (5 min) [synthesis]

  • Goal: end safely; agree who keeps the picture, whether it is photographed, stored or taken home, and whether it may be shown to anyone.

Session count. Not given in the sources. In practice it can be used once (as an assessment-like probe of interaction or a supervision exercise) or repeated across sessions to track change in a couple's or group's way of relating. [synthesis] [uncertain]

Professional frame. Dialogical painting is not a protected title and has no own credential; it is used by teachers and trainers as well as therapists ("Wer führt?" is a classroom worksheet). Used as therapy it falls under art-therapy practice: in the UK only HCPC-registered art therapists (BAAT) may call themselves art therapists; in the US, AATA/ATCB credentials; in Germany and Austria, art therapy training (e.g. Alanus BA Art Pedagogy Therapy) and national associations; check your own country's rules. A psychotherapist without art-therapy training can use the simple dyadic exercise within their competence, but should not use it for deep regressive or trauma work, or as an assessment, without art-therapy training or supervision. [source: Alanus programme name; Domain brief list of bodies] [synthesis for competence limits]

3. Guiding principles

  • The picture is the conversation. Treat every mark as a message and every response as an answer; in practice, watch the process at least as closely as the product. [source: Hogrefe; Alanus]
  • No prior concept. Participants start without a plan and let the picture develop from mutual impulses; in practice, do not set a motif unless the exercise calls for one. [source: Alanus]
  • Nonverbal first, words afterwards. Keep the making phase wordless (or nearly), then hold a separate verbal exchange; in practice, do not interpret during making. [source: Hogrefe; "Wer führt?"]
  • Leading and following are the material. Who starts, who takes over, who adapts is the core content; in practice, track and later ask about it. [source: "Wer führt?"; Alanus]
  • Roles shift and are negotiated. Leadership changes during the process and can be negotiated nonverbally or by short agreement when the group needs it; in practice, allow brief agreements rather than forcing total silence. [source: Alanus]
  • Materials as carriers. Choose materials deliberately for what they make possible (fluid paint invites merging; pencils keep boundaries); in practice, match material to the goal. [source: Hogrefe (materials as communication carriers)] [synthesis for the examples]
  • Description before interpretation. Let participants describe their own experience first; in practice, ask "what happened for you" before offering any reading of the picture. [synthesis]
  • Respect for each person's marks. Covering, crossing or changing another's marks is meaningful and can hurt; in practice, agree rules on overpainting in advance with fragile clients. [synthesis; overpainting conflicts reported in Zierhofer 2022]
  • No diagnosis from the picture. No validated scoring system was found for free dialogical painting. The one structured joint-painting method with a rating manual, the Joint Painting Procedure (seven scales; researched with mother–child dyads, children aged 9–12), is used to understand relationships and set treatment goals, not to diagnose disorder or abuse (4.9); in practice, use observations only as hypotheses to explore with the client, never as evidence of disorder or abuse. [source: Gavron & Mayseless 2018 for the JPP; rest synthesis] [uncertain: Janschek-Schlesinger's book]
  • Therapist as observer or partner, chosen deliberately. The therapist may stay outside and observe, or paint alongside the client to deepen nonverbal connection ("working alongside", Nash & Zentner 2023, abstract only); in practice, decide beforehand and reflect on it in supervision. [source: Nash & Zentner abstract]
  • Voluntariness. Anyone may stop at any time; in practice, give a stop signal and check consent again before touch-based variants. [synthesis]

4. Intervention inventory

Scope note: the second part of Janschek-Schlesinger (2019) consists of practical exercises on the making process, participant interaction and the verbal exchange (publisher description); they are not listed here. The procedures below are those given in the sources; 4.9 is a separately published related method (Joint Painting Procedure) with its own developer. Variants not found in any source are labelled [synthesis]. [uncertain: inventory is incomplete compared with the 2019 book]

Materials and physical safety (all procedures) [synthesis]

  • Use non-toxic, water-based paints (gouache, tempera, acrylic), soft pastels or crayons and markers labelled non-toxic; avoid solvent-based paints and spray fixatives indoors; ventilate.
  • Large sheets (A2 to wall- or floor-sized) or canvas, taped down so they cannot slide. Floor work: keep walkways clear, wipe spills at once (slip risk), offer chairs or kneeling pads for people with limited mobility.
  • Aprons or old clothes; water pots stable; no sharp tools (palette knives, cutters) with impulsive or self-harming clients; count tools back in.
  • With children: age-appropriate, non-toxic, non-edible-looking materials; supervise mouthing in young children.

4.1 Basic dyadic dialogical painting (one sheet, no words)

  • Purpose / when to use: To make a relationship visible and experienceable without words: client and partner, couple, parent and child, two group members, or trainee pairs. Useful when talking has become stuck, repetitive or defended, or when one person dominates verbally. [source: Hogrefe (topics hard to put into words become visible); Alanus]
  • Steps: [source for the core: Alanus (shared picture, no prior concept, responding to impulses); Hogrefe (making, interaction, verbal exchange). Specific steps: synthesis]
    1. Seat or stand the pair on two sides of one large sheet; put a shared set of colours in reach (or give each person one or two own colours so marks stay traceable [synthesis variant]).
    2. Explain the frame: one picture together, no talking, no plan, no need to draw well; either person may add, respond, pause; agree a stop signal (e.g. putting the brush down and raising a hand).
    3. Agree any rule on overpainting the other's marks (allowed, allowed only after a "nonverbal ask", or not allowed). With fragile clients, choose "not allowed" at first [synthesis].
    4. Start the time (typically 10–20 minutes). Optional variant: strict turn-taking, one mark or stroke each in alternation, to slow the exchange and make each move visible [synthesis variant].
    5. Observe silently: who starts; where each works (own corner vs shared centre); whether marks meet, avoid, cover or copy each other; pauses; who decides the picture is finished.
    6. Signal two minutes to go; stop at time or when both put brushes down.
    7. Step back together and look in silence for a short moment before moving to the verbal exchange (4.6).
  • Example language (illustrative): "You'll make one picture together on this sheet, without talking. There's no plan and no right way. Just notice what the other person does and answer it with colour, if you want to." / "If at any point you want to stop, put your brush down and raise your hand."
  • Watch for: One person filling the sheet while the other withdraws; repeated covering of the partner's marks; total separation into two halves; copying without own initiative; visible distress or anger. Signs it is working: increasing response to each other's marks, shifts in who leads, and in the debrief participants recognise a pattern they also know from daily life. [synthesis; leading/following focus from "Wer führt?" and Alanus]

4.2 Shared-pen drawing ("Who leads?")

  • Purpose / when to use: A highly structured version that makes dominance and yielding directly felt. Published as a lower-secondary classroom exercise to raise awareness of dominant behaviour; adaptable for couples, families and groups with care because it involves hand contact. [source: "Wer führt?" worksheet]
  • Steps: [source: "Wer führt?"; adaptation notes: synthesis]
    1. Pairs; one A3 sheet per pair, two or three coloured pencils or markers.
    2. Set a simple motif: tree, house, landscape, or an animal for younger children (the worksheet uses a given motif, unlike 4.1).
    3. Both partners hold the same pencil at the same time and draw for about 15 minutes without speaking; communication runs only through the pencil, not through facial expression or gesture (worksheet rule).
    4. Optional: change colour pencil only by a joint (wordless) move.
    5. Optional variation from the worksheet: afterwards, without speaking, the pair agrees a motto and/or an artist name for the picture (see 4.3).
    6. Debrief with the worksheet's question areas: who started, who then led, how easy it was to lead or be led, how they reacted when feeling overlooked, whether they are satisfied with the result.
    7. Adaptation [synthesis]: ask explicit consent for hand contact first; offer a no-touch alternative (each holds one end of a long brush or a pencil tied to two strings, or alternate turns on one sheet).
  • Example language (illustrative): "You'll both hold this one pencil and draw a tree together, without talking and without signalling with your faces. Let the pencil do all the talking." / "Before we start: is it all right for you both to have your hands this close? If not, there's another way to do it."
  • Watch for: Rigid control by one partner; passive limpness; tugging battles; giggling as discharge of tension (not necessarily a problem). Avoid labelling anyone as "the dominant one" in the debrief; describe the interaction instead. [synthesis] Touch can trigger trauma memories or feel intrusive in couples with power imbalance or violence: do not use with current intimate-partner violence or coercive control [synthesis].

4.3 Wordless naming of the shared picture

  • Purpose / when to use: A short closing negotiation that tests whether partners can reach a joint decision without words; it often reveals who has the final say. [source: "Wer führt?" variation; Alanus guiding question "Who has the final say?"]
  • Steps: [source: "Wer führt?"; detail: synthesis]
    1. After the making phase, ask the pair (or group) to agree, still without speaking, on a title, motto or artist name for the picture.
    2. They may write candidate words on a scrap sheet, point, nod, cross out [synthesis: means of agreement are not specified in the source].
    3. They write the agreed title on the picture or on a label.
    4. In the verbal exchange, ask how the decision was made and whether each person is content with it.
  • Example language (illustrative): "Still without talking, find a title you can both live with and write it on the back."
  • Watch for: One person writing a title without checking; endless deferral; a compromise neither likes. These are discussion material, not failures. [synthesis]

4.4 Group dialogical painting on a large surface

  • Purpose / when to use: For groups (3 or more) to explore roles, dominance and adaptation, belonging and space-sharing. Documented at Alanus as a two-week intensive for art-therapy/art-pedagogy students, with teams such as a group of three on one large canvas. German art-education literature describes the same-task joint picture as a product of continuous, mostly nonverbal exchange (Wichelhaus 1998) and joint painting as "relating to each other in the picture" (Klug 2005), both as cited by Zierhofer 2022. [source: Alanus; Zierhofer 2022 citing Wichelhaus and Klug]
  • Steps: [source: Alanus for large formats, no prior concept, shifting roles, music/rhythm/dance support, agreements when needed; ordering and timings: synthesis]
    1. Fix a large canvas or paper to a wall or floor so everyone has access; provide brushes, paint, pencils.
    2. Give the frame: one shared picture, no prior plan, respond to others' impulses; mainly wordless, but short agreements are allowed if the group gets stuck (Alanus describes agreement as part of the process).
    3. Optional: play music or rhythmic sound, or begin with a short movement warm-up, to support nonverbal attunement (Alanus project used music, rhythmic sounds and dance). Keep volume moderate.
    4. Let the group work 20–45 minutes (longer in training settings) [synthesis].
    5. Facilitator observes: territories, who enters whose area, alliances, isolated members, changes in leadership.
    6. Stop; the group walks around the picture in silence, then sits for the verbal exchange (4.6), using questions such as who had the final say, whether one was dominant or only adapted (Alanus guiding questions, paraphrased).
  • Example language (illustrative): "This canvas belongs to all of you. Begin wherever you like, and let what others do change what you do. If you really need to agree on something, keep it to a few words."
  • Watch for: Scapegoating (one member's marks repeatedly covered); members who never leave their corner; group pressure to make a "nice" picture. A shift from separate islands to connected areas over time is often a sign of increasing contact [synthesis]. Space and falls: keep enough room around the surface and avoid crowding ladders or chairs [synthesis].

4.5 Therapist painting alongside the client ("working alongside")

  • Purpose / when to use: The therapist makes art in response to the client, on the same or an adjacent surface, as an experimental phase of art therapy, to extend the arts-based connection and nonverbal communication through visual media; used one-to-one or in groups. Also called working alongside, parallel artmaking, painting together or joint activity. The therapist uses art improvisationally to connect with, respond to, reflect or mirror the client's process; the authors also discuss its contribution to clinical formulation and the use of supervision to reflect on the joint artwork. [source: Nash & Zentner 2023, abstract on the University of Hertfordshire repository record] [uncertain: the open-access accepted manuscript is listed in the repository but is not drawn on]
  • Steps: [source: abstract for the aims (connect with, reflect or mirror the client's process); concrete steps: synthesis]
    1. Ask whether the client would like you to paint with them, and how: same sheet, shared border, or separate sheets side by side. Respect a "no".
    2. Take a modest share of space and materials; let the client lead at first.
    3. Respond to the client's marks: mirror a rhythm, echo a colour, answer a shape, or leave space; avoid introducing strong content of your own.
    4. Stop when the client stops, or at the agreed time.
    5. Talk with the client about how it was to paint together; ask whether anything you did felt intrusive.
    6. Take the joint image and your own experience to clinical supervision (the article names supervision as part of the approach).
  • Example language (illustrative): "Would you like me to paint with you today, or would you rather I just watch? If I join, you can show me where my space is."
  • Watch for: Therapist dominance, aesthetic over-skill shaming the client, blurring of boundaries, and the client's ownership of the image. Contraindicated when a client experiences any joining as intrusion, e.g. some psychotic states or after boundary-violating trauma [synthesis].

4.6 Verbal exchange after the picture

  • Purpose / when to use: Always, after any wordless phase: the verbal exchange is a named component of dialogisches Gestalten. It turns experience into reflection and links it to everyday relationships. [source: Hogrefe; question areas from "Wer führt?" and Alanus]
  • Steps: [source for question areas; ordering: synthesis]
    1. Silent looking (1–2 min).
    2. Each person describes what they experienced while painting, in the first person, before commenting on the partner.
    3. Process questions: who started; who led later; was it easier to lead or be led; what happened when you felt overlooked; who had the final say; did you assert yourself or only adapt; are you satisfied with the result.
    4. Picture questions: where do you find yourself in the picture; where did you meet; what would you like to change.
    5. Bridge to life: "Where do you know this pattern from?" [synthesis]
    6. Closing round: one sentence each about what they take away.
  • Example language (illustrative): "Before we talk about the picture, say a few words about how it felt for you while it was being made." / "When your blue went over his yellow, what was going on for you?"
  • Watch for: Blame ("you always…") replacing self-report; steer back to own experience. A good sign is a participant noticing their own contribution to the pattern. [synthesis]

4.7 Dialogical painting in supervision and team work

  • Purpose / when to use: Supervision is a named field of application for dialogisches Gestalten; Nash & Zentner also use supervision to reflect on joint artworks. Uses: exploring team dynamics, or a supervisee and supervisor painting a case relationship without words. [source: Hogrefe; Nash & Zentner abstract] [concrete format: synthesis]
  • Steps: [synthesis] Use 4.1 or 4.4 with colleagues; agree confidentiality about what the pictures reveal; keep the focus on the working relationship, not personal therapy; debrief as in 4.6 with an added question on what this shows about the team or the case.
  • Example language (illustrative): "Let's each take a colour and paint how this team works together at the moment, without talking."
  • Watch for: Hierarchy in the room (managers present) inhibiting honesty; hold voluntariness strongly. [synthesis]

4.8 Couple and parent–child applications

  • Purpose / when to use: Dyadic dialogical painting (4.1, 4.2) can be used with couples or parent and child to show interaction patterns. [synthesis] For parent–child work in middle childhood a separately published, structured and rated method exists, the Joint Painting Procedure (Gavron); see 4.9. [source: Gavron & Mayseless 2018]
  • Steps: [synthesis] Assess first for safety (violence, coercive control, child protection); run 4.1 with own colours for each person; with children, keep it short (10 min) and playful; debrief the adult(s) separately when content touches parenting conflict.
  • Example language (illustrative): "Mum and Leo, you'll paint one picture together. Nobody talks, you just answer each other with colours."
  • Watch for: A parent taking over the child's space or correcting the child's marks; a child who freezes. Use as observation to discuss, never as evidence for custody or abuse decisions. [synthesis]

4.9 Related published method: Joint Painting Procedure (Gavron, Israel)

  • Purpose / when to use: An art-based assessment and clinical intervention for implicit aspects of the parent–child relationship in middle childhood, developed by art psychotherapist Tami Gavron (Tel-Hai College; University of Haifa Graduate School of Creative Art Therapies). Used clinically at several points in parent–child art psychotherapy: to understand the child's relational representations, identify potential for change and set dyadic treatment goals; it has also begun to be used as an intervention in its own right. It differs from free dialogical painting: it is staged, moves gradually from pencil to paint and from individual to joint space (meant to help participants feel secure), and has a rating manual. The published description sets no rule of silence; some dyads talked while painting. [source: Gavron & Mayseless 2018; University of Haifa CATRC page]
  • Steps: [source: Gavron & Mayseless 2018, paraphrased; timings not reported]
    1. Explain the procedure and materials (pencil; gouache or tempera paints; brushes; one shared sheet) and offer a short warm-up with the paints.
    2. Each partner marks a personal area on the shared sheet in pencil.
    3. Each partner paints inside their own area.
    4. Each partner paints a frame around their area.
    5. Each partner paints a path from their own frame towards the partner's frame.
    6. Parent and child paint the rest of the paper together.
    7. Parent, child and therapist look at the painting together, talk about the experience, give it a title and make up a shared story about it.
    8. For assessment, the administrator records each step on a structured protocol and rates the dyad on the manual's seven scales: individuation and autonomy; intrusion; mutual recognition; role confusion; motivation for relationships; emotional expression; expression of implicit anger and aggression toward the other.
  • Example language (illustrative): "First, each of you draws in pencil a space on this paper that will be your own." / "Now each of you paints a path from your frame towards the other's frame."
  • Watch for: How each partner treats the other's space and path (waiting, meeting, intruding, taking over the joint area). The authors report that change could occur within the joint making itself, without therapist intervention. Limits the authors state: single session; mother–child dyads only; children aged 9–12; the first author ran most sessions and did the qualitative analysis. Inter-rater reliability was assessed (three judges, 20 dyads) and ratings predicted child adjustment beyond questionnaires and temperament, with full statistics in Gavron (2018), not drawn on. [source: Gavron & Mayseless 2018] Do not apply the scales outside the researched population or as evidence in custody or abuse decisions. [synthesis]
  • Training and access: The rating manual is sold as a book through the University of Haifa CATRC. The sources state no training requirement; use it within art-therapy competence (see Professional frame). [source: CATRC page; competence point synthesis] [uncertain: training route]

5. Handling problems

None of the sources gives a problem-handling section. Everything below is [synthesis] unless tagged otherwise; the overpainting-conflict point draws on Zierhofer 2022.

  • Client refuses or says "I can't paint". Normalise: no skill needed, scribbles count. Offer an easier entry: crayons instead of paint, a smaller sheet, a short time limit, or the therapist as partner (4.5) instead of a family member. If they still decline, respect it and talk about what makes it hard. [synthesis]
  • Talking during the wordless phase. Gently restate the frame once ("let's keep it in the picture for now"); allow brief agreements in groups (Alanus treats agreement as part of the process); afterwards ask what made speaking necessary. [source: Alanus for agreements; rest synthesis]
  • One person dominates the sheet. Do not interrupt at once; it is the material. If the other partner clearly suffers, switch to strict turn-taking or own colours and own starting areas for a second round; debrief without labelling. [synthesis; leading/following focus from "Wer führt?"]
  • Overpainting conflict or hurt. Stop if distress is high; acknowledge both experiences; make covering explicit in the debrief ("what did it mean for you when your part disappeared?"). For later rounds, agree a rule (ask first, or no covering). In community painting, overpainting conflicts were resolved through conversation, sometimes with a moderating third person (Zierhofer 2022). [source: Zierhofer 2022; rest synthesis]
  • Withdrawal or freezing. Slow down; reduce the size of the shared area; invite one small mark; offer to stop. Afterwards, explore freezing as information, not as failure. [synthesis]
  • Overwhelm or trauma activation (e.g. a covering mark or a hand on the shared pen recalls control or violation). Use the stop signal; ground (feet on floor, name five things in the room, a drink of water); separate the sheets; return to verbal work; plan whether and how to try again. Do not use shared-pen or touch variants with clients with recent trauma involving physical control unless they are well stabilised and explicitly choose it. [synthesis]
  • Touch and consent (4.2 and any guiding of hands). Explain the exercise before starting, ask each person separately, offer a no-touch alternative, allow withdrawal at any moment; respect cultural and gender norms about touch; never any sexual or intimate touch. [synthesis; Domain rules]
  • Couple or family escalation. If the picture turns into a fight, pause, separate the sheets, and move to a structured verbal round with each speaking in turn. Do not use the method in couples work where there is current violence or coercive control; it can expose the less powerful partner. [synthesis]
  • "Nice picture" defence (group paints a harmonious, safe image with no real contact). Name it lightly, ask what a less careful picture would have looked like, or try a second round with a time limit or a bigger brush. [synthesis]
  • Over-interpretation by the therapist or the group. Keep interpretations as questions; do not treat the picture as diagnostic evidence; no validated scoring system for dialogical painting was found. [synthesis] [uncertain]
  • Rupture with the therapist (especially after 4.5, if the client felt intruded on). Ask directly, accept responsibility for your part, agree how (or whether) to paint together again; bring it to supervision. [synthesis; supervision use from Nash & Zentner abstract]
  • Non-adherence to the format (people bring their own plan, write words, refuse to share). Accept modifications that keep the dialogue; the deviation itself is material for the debrief. [synthesis]
  • Children and young people. Get assent from the child and consent from the person with parental responsibility; keep sessions short and playful; if the picture or the child's comments raise a safeguarding concern, follow local safeguarding and mandatory-reporting procedures, record what was said and seen factually, and do not interpret the drawing as proof of abuse. [synthesis; Domain rules]
  • Group: an isolated or scapegoated member. Watch for one person's marks being repeatedly covered or ignored; in the debrief protect them (ask the group what they noticed about space, not about the person); consider a follow-up individual check-in. [synthesis]
  • Risk content (self-harm images, suicidal remarks during the debrief). Follow standard risk assessment: ask directly about thoughts and plans, assess protective factors, agree a safety plan and follow your service's escalation route. [synthesis]

Sources

Sources:

Books and papers cited (not drawn on unless listed above):

  • Janschek-Schlesinger, R. (2019). Praxisbuch Dialogisches Gestalten. Kommunizieren mit künstlerischen Materialien. Hogrefe. (Book and its preview PDF not drawn on.) [uncertain]
  • Wichelhaus, B. (1998). Gemeinsam Bilder herstellen. (Cited via Zierhofer 2022.) [uncertain]
  • Klug, H. (2005). Malen in Gruppen. (Cited via Zierhofer 2022.) [uncertain]
  • Nash, G. & Zentner, M. (2023). Working Alongside: Communicating visual empathy within collaborative art therapy. Journal of Applied Arts & Health, 14(1), 85–99. doi:10.1386/jaah_00129_1. Abstract (repository record); full text not drawn on. [uncertain]
  • Gavron, T. (2013, 2018). Joint Painting Procedure rating manual (cited in Gavron & Mayseless 2018; sold through University of Haifa CATRC). Not drawn on.

Further reading (not drawn on): the Hogrefe "Blick ins Buch" preview PDF of Janschek-Schlesinger (2019) and the Nash & Zentner accepted-manuscript PDF (University of Hertfordshire repository); a "Painting Dialogues" article (eaapublishing.org). Wichelhaus (1998) and Klug (2005) are not drawn on.

← Previous · VIII-038Remedial-education art therapy (Menzen)Next · VIII-040 →Messpainting