The Arts in Psychotherapy 28 (2001) 161–174

Inside an art therapy group: the student perspective

Nora Swan–Foster, M.A., ATR-BCa,*, Melony Lawlor, M.A.b,
Laura Scott, M.A.c, Diane Angel, M.A.d,
Cristina Maria Ruiz, M.A.e, Maria Mana, M.A.f
a
Naropa University, 2130 Arapahoe Avenue, Boulder, CO 80302, USA
b
Youth and Family Services, Inc., Skowhegan, ME, USA
c
QuaLife Wellness Community, Denver, CO, USA
d
Centennial Peaks, Louisville, CO, USA
e
Education Institute-Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia
f
Family and Youth Outreach Services, Inc., Falls Church, VA, USA

Introduction sive, but there is a pronounced absence of literature

Group work is an important aspect of our profes-
sion as art therapists. There are many formats for
teaching art therapy students about group dynamics;
however, in this paper, we will call our group time an
art therapy training group (T-group) because it was a
specific time for observing and learning group dy-
namics first hand. The T-group is one of students’
first formal introductions to group art therapy, and is
often their only exposure to groups before internship
and employment. T-groups offer art therapy students
an opportunity to experience group dynamics first-
hand, and allow them to find more authentic relation-
ships with fellow students while enhancing self-
awareness. In the ever changing clinical climate that
challenges art therapists to wear several hats and to
be flexible with their professional identities, group
training offers an important format for expanding
self-awareness and skill (Malchiodi, 1999).
Although therapists in the creative arts remember
their T-groups as pivotal markers in their education,
the student perspective of T-group experiences is
rarely discussed (Carter et al., 1978; McClure, 1998;
Wadeson, 1987; Waller, 1993). Literature on group
work and art therapy group work is broad and exten-
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: NswanFos@aol.com (N. Swan–Foster).
documenting an art therapy T-group from the student
perspective (Carter et al., 1978; Swan–Foster, Lawlor
& Scott, 1999). This paper seeks to partially remedy
that situation by documenting a 15-week art therapy
T-group of 13 women and 1 female leader. Weekly
progress notes made by all the group members as
well as a follow-up questionnaire yielded substantial
comments on specific group dynamics and themes
from which the authors focused on relevant subsec-
tions that were later woven together into this paper.
Although the whole T-group participated in making
this possible, the paper predominately reflects the
experiences of these authors.
The T-group was regularly held at the end of a
class, after the discussion of academic and ethical
readings. The T-group was scheduled in the first
semester of the second year when the members had
established subgroups from their first year of classes.
The leader entered the group as a newcomer. The
leader’s goals for students within the T-group portion
of the class were to experiment with personal expres-
sion through talking and art, to experiment with roles
and boundaries, and to expand the capacity to tolerate
the uncovering of group conflict and tension. Two
themes dominated this art therapy T-group: 1) how to
interpose words with art within an art therapy group,
and 2) how to clarify and understand group conflict
and resistance within a multirelationship environ-
ment.

0197-4556/01/$ – see front matter © 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 9 7 - 4 5 5 6 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 1 0 6 - X
162 N. Swan–Foster et al. / The Arts in Psychotherapy 28 (2001) 161–174
The paper is organized into two main sections. In
the first section, we provide background information
that is relevant to our T-group experience. The rele-
vant areas that we discuss are: the transpersonal par-
adigm, a contemplative context, the feminist perspec-
tive, multicultural issues, group ethics, and
resistance. In the second section, we describe some
poignant stages of the 15-session T-group art therapy
process and analyze these stages in terms of the
background information provided in the first section.
The student perspective: relevant background
information
The transpersonal paradigm
Transpersonal art therapy is defined by Farrelly–
Hansen as “both a perspective and a path” (Franklin,
Farrelly–Hansen, Marek, Swan–Foster & Walling-
ford, 2000, p. 102). The transpersonal perspective
engages with the notion of the transitions between
words and art and between the process and the prod-
uct. In the transitions, individuals may become aware
of themselves in relation to the group and connect to
an essence beyond themselves. A person may gain an
expanded awareness of the “above and beyond” as
they sit before their art within a group. For the first
time they may see themselves connected to the
whole, while at the same time the group also sees
them in their wholeness. Winnicott’s (1982) work on
the transitional phenomena supports the group to
notice a “potential space” where the play of making
art happens. To enter this space requires spontaneity,
risk taking, nourishment, and trust (Levine, 1989).
From a transpersonal perspective, moving in and out
of making art is likened to a nonordinary state of
consciousness (Farrelly–Hansen, 1998; Taylor,
1995). Also, as Skaife and Huet (1998) point out, the
“transition between the different activities in the art
psychotherapy group is where tensions mostly occur”
(p. 18). Navigating into and out of the art making
process requires the skill to move between words and
images, which represent both the potentiality and
tension in a group. As McClure (1998) states: “The
therapeutic potential of groups can be maximized by
utilizing the transpersonal realm” (p. 203).
A contemplative context
The term contemplative refers to group members
intently watching their own process and the process
of the group as a whole. The four main contemplative
concepts that arose during our T-group were presence
or mindfulness, meeting one’s edge, maitri, and si-
lence. They were recognized and validated in this
T-group because of the specific contemplative train-
ing included in our curriculum (Franklin, 1999;
Franklin et al., 2000). As Kabat–Zinn (1994) ob-
serves, in presence or mindfulness “we commit fully
in each moment to being present. There is no ‘per-
formance.’ There is just this moment” (p. 22). Meet-
ing one’s edge (Chodron, 1991, 1997) is when we
have the most difficult time staying present and the
strongest desire to jump ship. Maitri is Sanskrit for
loving-kindness towards oneself. It encompasses the
idea of befriending oneself and others just the way
we are (Chodron, 1991). Instead of trying to change
things, one uncovers what is always present (Kabat–
Zinn, 1994). Silence is experienced in an art therapy
T-group when members focus on breathing or mak-
ing art. Silence is commonly viewed as an inhibiting
factor or resistance (Becker, 1972). Because silence
is often a necessary requirement for art therapy
groups, a more suitable understanding is when Gans
and Counselman (2000) point out that “silence does
not have to indicate avoidance or suppression, and
often occurs in the normal course of group work . . .
silence and talking are . . . both opportunities for
learning” (p. 72). They further state that a “leader
who is comfortable with silences creates a slowed
pace that allows for pause and reflection. For some
members, it is the first time in their lives that they
have been allowed to be slow” (p. 74).
The feminist perspective
When considering the feminist perspective it is
important not to interpret the use of this paradigm as
an attempt to isolate the genders but rather to enhance
the understanding of a same gender T-group. Most
traditional group dynamics were conceived by men
and based on mixed gender groups, and the vast
developmental, multicultural, and gender issues that
arise in same gender groups were not considered
when group theories originated (DeChant, 1996; Gil-
ligan, 1982; Jordan & Kaplan, 1991; McClure, 1998).
Recent research suggests that same gender groups are
unique in their behavior (Bernardez, 1996; Bra-
bender, 1992; DeChant, 1996; Levine, 1989). Most
important is that women tend to develop a definition
of themselves through attachment and relationships
and, as a result, tend to be threatened by separation
(Chodorow, 1974; Gilligan, 1982).
Another important aspect is that of finding and
using one’s voice in an art therapy group. By speak-
ing within a group, a woman challenges herself to be
more clearly defined (Gilligan, 1982). And yet, par-
adoxically, “the creative process . . . value[s] interac-
tion, nurturance, support, and interconnectedness”
(Levine, 1989, p. 325). By experiencing both con-
nection and self-definition within a female group,
 N. Swan–Foster et al. / The Arts in Psychotherapy 28 (2001) 161–174
members modify group norms and discover the
power of their art. When in a same gender group,
women tend to identify and trust the perspectives of
both the group and the individual experience rather
than making comparisons to other models of group
process (Worell & Remer, 1992). A challenge for
same gender groups is that a woman is often cultur-
ally valued for her care-taking skills, so she is reluc-
tant to present a different aspect of herself in the
group. Consequently, although care-taking is vital for
group cohesion, it can also “possess a strong defen-
sive component” that inhibits the progress of the
group (Brabender, 1992, p. 134).
Multicultural issues
The multicultural aspect of this art therapy T-
group was expressed through the diversity of lan-
guages, artwork, cultural backgrounds, sociopolitical
ideas, and spiritual orientations. Acculturation is the
process of introducing and integrating an individual
or group from a different culture into a new culture
(Salvendy, 1999). Group members were dealing with
profound issues of acculturation into American soci-
ety, as well as adjustment to the subcultures of the
University and the academic and professional world
of art therapy.
For four group members, English was a second
language, with Finnish, Spanish, French, and Greek
as first languages. These first languages were present
as part of the members’ identities, but repressed by
the need to use English to connect and survive in
daily life and within the culture of graduate school.
They struggled in varying degrees with language and
socialization within the American culture, feeling
misunderstood, unheard, or of being invisible or min-
imized (Salvendy, 1999). The group was awakened
by these rich, underlying details and both the mem-
bers and the leader were required to “modify . . .
strategies to meet the unique needs” of the group
(Corey & Corey, 1997, p. 15). In some cases, “the
yardstick for measuring progress may be very differ-
ent or even nonexistent” to first establish a human
connection (Sanford, 2000, p. 34). Corey and Corey
(1997) and Sanford (2000) explain the process as
discovering an awareness of cultural assumptions and
expectations, while finding connections through cul-
tural differences.
Group ethics
Ethics, by its very nature, is rarely a clearly de-
fined issue, but rather each case is best reviewed in
context while certain basic ethical laws and standards
are considered (Corey & Corey, 1997; Haeseler,
1992). In a T-group, ethical standards are modified
163
because of the academic environment, resulting in
group tension or resistance to self-exposure within
the group process (Corey & Corey, 1997; Yalom,
1995). In addition, the American Art Therapy Asso-
ciation’s 1997 Ethics Document does not specifically
outline group ethics for art therapy groups. Yalom
(1995) explains that if the leader can adequately and
openly address these issues with the students and the
group is aware of the challenges, then the group has
the opportunity to progress. “Progress of the group
over time is not measured by reduction of conflict,
but rather in the ability of the group to identify and
resolve conflict situations efficiently” (Unger, 1990,
p. 35).
Learning about group ethics and legal standards
(Corey & Corey, 1997) elevated tension and conflict
within the art therapy T-group for the following rea-
sons:
1. Inability to choose the group leader (private
clients generally choose their group therapist).
2. Involuntary or mandatory participation (posi-
tive group therapy arises most effectively from
voluntary participation).
3. Multirelationships among the students and be-
tween students and the leader. Examples in-
clude: role-playing, grading, future academic
relationships, and external (boundaries within
a group regarding multirelationships tend to be
clearly defined).
4. Group history and group future (groups are
often newly formed and members do not know
one another. In open groups, newcomers are
common).
5. Pseudoconfidentiality (group therapist is re-
quired to maintain confidentiality and encour-
ages members to do the same).
6. Competition for future clinical observation and
internship sites, (competition is usually a
group dynamic that is not stimulated by out-
side expectations or requirements).
7. Maintaining a professional identity (group
members’ professional identity is not usually
compromised by pseudoconfidentiality and
multirelationships).
The fact that this group was mandatory within a
required class, and that there was no choice regarding
the group leader, proved to be an important source of
resistance as well as a point of enlightenment for the
members when learning about ethics. In addition,
there was no prescreening for mutuality of goals,
level of group experience or commitment to the
group. We came to this training group with a history
and we knew we would be together for several more
semesters after this class. We demonstrated our re-
164 N. Swan–Foster et al. / The Arts in Psychotherapy 28 (2001) 161–174
sistance by not using art materials, by refusing to talk
about a topic, and by eventually focusing on con-
flicts, competition, and expressing our anger.
Group anger was associated with the abundance
of multirelationships unique to a T-group. As stu-
dents, we could not prevent having dual relationships
with each other as friends, classmates, future profes-
sionals, and as art therapy T-group members. If we
had failed to support one another in the past, there
were probably emotional injuries that we unknow-
ingly incurred as a group. How much of our anger
stemmed from our personal past and worked itself
out within the group? How did care and compassion
link with honesty and authenticity of feeling? Even
further, were we thinking we would be graded on our
anger? If we expressed our anger would our leader
retaliate by grading our expression (Brabender, 1992,
p. 138)? The T-group focused on ways to address
anger and issues of authority that were stimulated by
the multirelationships.
Upon arriving at school, we had been given a
handout on ethical standards for giving and receiving
feedback that recommended anger be expressed in a
thoughtful and caring manner. However, requiring
anger to be expressed with care and compassion
aroused confusion for us as a female group because
we needed to learn how to express anger clearly
while having permission to make mistakes. Ulti-
mately, we no longer wanted to abandon ourselves to
appear “caring and compassionate.”
Group resistance
Resistance is seen as the forces that restrict the
connection to the group, “that interfere with sharing
experiences, and that undermine solidification and
consolidation” (Ormont, 1992, p. 121). Resistance is
often viewed as a hindrance to group progress, al-
though “some initial resistance is always expected”
(Corey & Corey, 1997, p. 137). Fenchel and Flapan
(1985) report that resistance is typically viewed with
pejorative connotations, even though it arises from
various sources and cannot always be labeled clearly.
In addition, they state that resistance contains possi-
ble adaptive functions that, once explored, could in-
crease spontaneity within the group.
In our T-group, resistance offered an opportunity
to improve our self-disclosure skills, establish our
autonomy, and protect our future professional integ-
rity. The resistance also offered the chance to be
more authentic and to take risks and experience gen-
uine spontaneity. Resistance was also important for
us to experience for future professional work when
our clients will feel similarly. As a result, resistance
was used as a positive and mature coping skill while
a contemplative perspective offered us a way to
soften our hearts towards our self and to others
through the concept of maitri. As students, we ac-
tively addressed group resistance as directly related
to the ethical confusions inherent within an academic
environment where experiential learning was a nec-
essary part of the curriculum. The leader supported
the T-group by recognizing resistance as an accept-
able way to protect the T-group’s apparent cohesion
and individual safety.
By acknowledging the resistance we recreated
new group cohesion. In doing this, we abandoned the
comparative approach between group members, and
instead accepted the wide diversity of emotions even
if they differed from other member’s experiences.
Old ways of expressing anger were counteracted by
learning about healthy expressions of anger. It was
necessary for those of us feeling anger to ask for and
receive support from other group members. We
learned that anger offered a positive energetic force
that allowed for the beginnings of new group norms.
Resistance to making art manifested early in the
group. We were aware of the depths that the images
revealed. We also reacted against the nonverbal con-
tract of the T-group using art materials as a focus. In
fact, we often struggled with our identity as future art
therapists, feeling a pull to make art because of the
“should” and yet wanting to make art because of the
desire. One group member observed that “art tells on
you.” Art sometimes reveals more than we are ready
to share. Though there was advice from our profes-
sors to only reveal what we were comfortable with in
class projects, this remained a difficult task. We had
experienced sharing too much of ourselves in the past
and did not want to repeat this in our T-group. At the
same time, we realized the paradox of how we could
“hide” in making art and potentially never connect
with each other. Experiencing resistance through
both words and the art-making process offered us a
vital opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to art
therapy as a profession.
Art therapy group process
Developmental perspective
Like the journey of life, a group’s process unfolds
in stages; group themes emerge, both conscious and
unconscious, which require attention. We answered
this need for attention by developing a “group voice.”
The group voice may be understood as the collective
group themes expressed in the primary and secondary
levels of group interaction. The primary level is the
hidden agenda of the group process, while the sec-
ondary level is the conscious material within the
group interactions.
 N. Swan–Foster et al. / The Arts in Psychotherapy 28 (2001) 161–174
Fig. 1. L’s Truth.
The developmental paradigm views groups in
stages, even though there are no “clear dividing lines
between the phases of a group” (Corey & Corey,
1987, p. 223). Brabender (1992) outlines the follow-
ing four stages that occur in groups composed of all
women: “In the first stage, women face issues related
to autonomy and connection. In the second stage,
women focus upon conflictual feelings in relation to
authority. In the third stage, women address obstacles
to the achievement of satisfying, intimate, peer-based
relationships. In the fourth stage, women focus upon
issues of separation and loss that are precipitated by
the termination of the group” (p. 131).
Immediate group issues
Corey and Corey (1997) describe stage one as the
initial development of standards for behavior while
beginning to explore the primary or “hidden” agenda
of the group. Stage one also addresses group trust and
cohesiveness, issues which were present in the T-
group’s early sessions (Brabender, 1992).
In the first session, the focus on mutual and egal-
itarian relationships was displayed through speaking
and listening to others when members expressed con-
cerns regarding the multirelationships inherent within
the T-group, and the purpose and expectations of our
emotional participation within a group (Worell &
Remer, 1992). Addressing these issues of intimacy
and safety revealed that we were not as united as we
presented to others. This was illustrated by the first
art directive “draw your hopes, fears, and secrets,” in
which most of the images were of individuals. One
165
member responded (Fig. 1) “I felt if I let out my
‘secret’ that I was fearful others wouldn’t like the
‘real’ me.” Her fear was common among other stu-
dent group members, illustrating a common feeling
for the first stage of a group. Brabender (1992) writes
that “. . . many female members can readily relate to
the fear of being found inadequate by the group and
wish for the group’s approval” (p. 136). Fig. 2 illus-
trates the concerns regarding presenting a more au-
thentic self to the group. Of this image the artist said,
“It was about showing more of my real self to the
group, yet being strongly afraid to do so.” Another
member documented how she felt in the group in Fig.
3. “[The drawing] was. . . a representation of how I
was feeling in relation to my classmates. I see the
frustration and aloneness I felt in that moment. I
wanted to connect but was not willing to share all my
‘stories’ yet. There was very little investment in this
image, but I see the green vine-like leaves as an
awareness that there was a potential for growth in this
situation.”
In the third session, multicultural issues with lan-
guage burst out when one member took notes in the
T-group. The person taking notes admitted to doubt-
ing her ability to keep track of the group process
because she was still learning English. Her note tak-
ing stimulated a discussion on confidentiality and
safety. Group members shared their reactions and
feelings about secrecy, isolation, and feeling angry
and judged as a result of her note taking. The group
encouraged each other to use spoken words to find
the support needed from other group members, but no
firm decision was made on whether or not group
166 N. Swan–Foster et al. / The Arts in Psychotherapy 28 (2001) 161–174
Fig. 2. M’s figure.
members could take notes in future groups. Instead,
by addressing the split on whether or not to allow
note taking in the group, it was discovered that first
languages and cultures of origin were being shut out
of the group through the acculturation process. A
Fig. 3. D’s vine.
subgroup of bilingual members was discovered as
each individual expressed a sense of isolation in their
own experience. This theme of a split surfaced again
later.
The group learned in the early stages of the group
that, even though they provided a therapeutic envi-
ronment for safety by maintaining good boundaries,
using active listening skills and respecting the suffer-
ing and strength of each other, a real sense of safety
must also come from trusting one’s self. One member
spoke of her internal journey to find the safety that
would allow her to speak in the group: “I realized that
safety was not something the others could give to me.
Safety was something that grew out of trusting my-
self.”
Although these early group concerns could be
defined as resistance, clarification was appropriate for
a corrective emotional experience regarding expecta-
tions around self-disclosure. The group’s secondary
process of setting personal boundaries and clarifying
expectations furthered the primary hidden agenda of
re-evaluating group norms around trust and safety. It
was the leader’s job to tolerate the clarification and
distrust.
The sweet mural
An example of group primary process of conflict
and vulnerability was expressed through the first mu-
ral (Fig. 4 and Fig. 5), titled the “sweet mural.” The
mural remained an empty sheet for sessions 3 and 4.
During this time, the mural paper gained boundaries
from the fold lines when it was stored between
 N. Swan–Foster et al. / The Arts in Psychotherapy 28 (2001) 161–174
Fig. 4. Blank mural paper with folds.
classes. When we were ready to engage with the art
materials during session 5, the leader asked us to
“choose a paint color and find a square in which to
paint how you feel in the group today.” The art
reflected a beginning stage in that we were unaware
and “asleep” to the level of cohesiveness that would
tolerate deep anxiety, conflict, anger, and dissension
within the group (Corey & Corey, 1997). Some of us
did not follow the directive, nor did we stay within
the folds of the paper. Trust, safety, and boundary
issues were now visually illustrated in the mural.
The group’s tension was heightened when one
member expressed how “sweet” the mural felt, but
that “sweet” was not her experience of working on
the mural or of how she was feeling after painting.
Some members wanted to avoid this difference, but
her courage to speak was an important turning point
Fig. 5. Sweet mural.
167
of bringing the primary issues to consciousness. Her
voice woke us out of a deep sleep. While working on
the mural, other members experienced genuine feel-
ings of unity and group community. The group mem-
bers’ paradoxical experiences highlighted the natural
tension within the T-group, and the session ended
with no resolution.
The heightened tension, resulting from a lack of
resolution, challenged us to tolerate our differences
as individuals within a group. Recognizing our au-
tonomy jeopardized the existing group cohesiveness
and threatened the group with feelings of separation,
rejection, abandonment, and isolation. To handle this
conflict and to trust that the change would be bene-
ficial, the group found nourishment through individ-
ual contemplative presence or mindfulness. This al-
lowed for a slower pace so members could become
more conscious of personal and group dynamics.
There was no formalized meditation or leader-di-
rected technique; instead students used their own
experience from their contemplative practice as a tool
for managing the intense moments of the group pro-
cess.
It takes curiosity and persistence to be present for
each moment, and this is a skill that can be attained
only through repetition and practice, especially when
the moment holds emotions and sensations that are
unpleasant or tumultuous. One member felt chal-
lenged by staying present: “Our group seemed to
have many days where being present was hard for
me. I so much wanted to go away into my thoughts of
what happened in the morning before group or what
168 N. Swan–Foster et al. / The Arts in Psychotherapy 28 (2001) 161–174
Fig. 6. Web in circle.
was going to happen that night. I wanted to be any-
where but in my chair in the group circle.”
The Web
In sessions 7, 8, and 9, the contemplative presence
was felt by the group when we created pieces with
plasticene, followed by a group piece called “the
Web” (Fig. 6). As a group, we had experienced con-
flict from the note taking incident and the first mural.
Group members expressed uncertainty about the
goals in the group, while other members wondered if
the group could be destroyed by the conflict.
Plasticene was chosen by the leader because it
offered tactile resistance and self-soothing. Each per-
son held the plasticene in her hands and molded it as
she talked or listened. There was felt resistance
against our hands by working with the cold clay. The
resistance to change was kinesthetically felt through
the materials, which eventually softened and took
new form. This may have been a time when we were
using the clay to embody the entirety of the situation
at hand. We were not concerned with the product, but
rather integrating our individual experience into the
art material. We were present with all that was oc-
curring in the moment, and were using that experi-
ence to create a piece in the moment, without jump-
ing into future thoughts of what it was going to look
Fig. 7. Web in pile.
like. In the parallel process of speaking and making
art, a softening occurred. A new sense of cohesion
and vulnerability emerged in the group that was both
represented in the silences and through the words, the
tears, and the art. The conflict was still there, but for
now there was a rest.
In the next two sessions (sessions 8 and 9), the
T-group reaffirmed connection and safety with the
Web (Fig. 7), made from boxes of yarn, beads, and
feathers. We worked individually, talking, creating,
weaving, and connecting small individual pieces that
first sat in our laps and then were eventually pieced
together into a circular shape (Fig. 6) that sat in the
center of our group circle. “I feel like I am in a
quilting-bee” one woman said, and there was a gen-
eral sense of group unity, a place of inner knowing.
At this point in the group process, the leader decided
not to give an art directive because a new level of
group safety and risk-taking had emerged. She chose
materials that reflected the T-group dynamics. When
a member asked the leader why she chose the mate-
rials, she said “because the boxes of stuff offer a
metaphor for the group to do some untangling and
sorting through.” The result was an isomorphic rep-
resentation that amplified the complex group dynam-
ics.
Four sessions later we worked together to untan-
gle the yarn piece, attempting to sort through the
knots and confusion while we verbally sorted through
 N. Swan–Foster et al. / The Arts in Psychotherapy 28 (2001) 161–174 169

the knots and confusion of the group conflicts. Would

it be a nest, an umbrella, or something else? The Web
offered a way for us to recover our creative potential
“when, in solidarity with other women, [we worked]
through the multiple ways in which [we had] been
discouraged, disconnected, and distracted from . . .
genuine aspirations and capacities” (Bernadez, 1996,
p. 256). After the Web was untangled and formed a
circle again, the group added a stronger rope to sup-
port the individual pieces.
The Web exemplified transpersonal art therapy
because “making art and entering into an authentic
relationship with both its process and product. . . pro-
vides access to some of those nonordinary states
wherein one’s consciousness and capacity for com-
passion and service undergo major transformations”
(Franklin et al., 2000, p. 102). The sorting through
was the secondary process, while the primary process
of the task was finding connection and spontaneity
between members. This happened when participants
exchanged seats to help each other, and became phys-
ically closer as we sorted through our Web. All the
feelings of conflict, entanglement, appreciation, dis-
like, separation, and autonomy were held within the
metaphor of the art that was greater than the group.
Fig. 9. Mandala Mural.
Figs. 6 and 7 reaffirm the power of the art process as
a natural way of repairing and restructuring ways of
being in the world. The Web was also a symbol of
frustration for us because it was tangled and felt fragile and unsuccessful in its purpose. This art piece
holds a reminder of both the failure and the potential
of groups in all their diversity, mutuality, confusion,
and beauty (Schaverien, 1992; Unger, 1990).

The Mandala Mural

With the Web in place, Brabender’s (1992) sec-

Fig. 8. Blank circle with tape and footprints.
ond stage (conflict with authority) and third stage
(exploring obstacles to satisfying, peer-based rela-
tionships) emerged in sessions 10, 11, 12, and 13,
with two half circles that were eventually taped to-
gether and drawn on (Fig. 8 and Fig. 9). This second
mural took us four group sessions to complete, and
was called the “Mandala Mural.”
The Mandala Mural was first presented in session
10 by the leader as two halves of a circle to reflect the
split within the group that had been earlier defined by
a member as two subgroups: the “talkers” and the
“nontalkers.” The group’s resistance to uncovering
the subgroups was often reflected by the resistance to
making art for fear that this split would become more
visible and would perhaps “split” the T-group’s ac-
ademic community. As an intervention, the group
was asked to use images to express how they felt to
be in either half of the circle. Members were not
designated to one half of the circle or the other, but
could move back and forth between either side. Sev-
170 N. Swan–Foster et al. / The Arts in Psychotherapy 28 (2001) 161–174
eral of the talkers strongly rejected this art directive,
while some of the nontalkers expressed an interest
and a willingness to see what would happen. Para-
doxically, it was the nontalkers who expressed a
willingness to take a risk.
As we struggled with what to do with the two
halves of paper, a poignant example of the metaphor-
ical group voice became a reality out of the “split
space” when one member expressed anxiety about
using her voice in the group. She was anxious about
speaking but wanted to honor that she had something
relevant to say. She softly said “I’ve lost my voice
and I want it back. . . . ” At the leader’s suggestion,
we all chanted with her “I’ve lost my voice and I
want it back.” “I’ve lost my voice and I want it
back!” louder and louder. “I’ve lost my voice and I
want it back!”
The nontalkers spoke of “risk-taking” and “trust”
as important aspects of their experience. One member
wrote that the group “made conscious the concept of
the [individual] voice. . . through the process of this
group, I was able to risk using my voice, and trust it
would be heard.” Another shared that “what finally
shifted for me was the recognition from a peer that I
was one of the quiet ones. Being seen encouraged me
to be more present with the others, to take risks and
share my perspective.” Another quiet member said,
“By pushing and confronting some of my deepest
fears I got . . . to know not only my voice better, but
also myself. . . to reprogram the old messages passed
down in my family that women have nothing intelli-
gent to say.” Feeling dismissed, unheard, or unseen
were common themes we discussed in the T-group,
and the “empty art” reflected these empty feelings
back to us. In response to her solitary female image,
one member, who was one of the nontalkers in the
group, speaks to her individual growth in this T-
group through a poem.
Woman,
illuminated from within
holding in my hands a ball of fear
knowing it will show me the way
to an inner place of truth
belly full of swirling sensations
the edge of my warmth meets the darkness
I cradle my instincts, my fear and can feel
the joy of all these lively parts of me rise
my arms are strong and feel protective of this
blue and yellow orb I am holding
will it expand, deflate, crack into a million pieces
or remain solid?
the darkness around me only further deepens
my inside glow
I sing out loud in my aloneness
triumphant as the words echo through
For the talkers, feedback was important to their
experience. One member said, “what I say may sound
very different from what I mean. I need to form my
thoughts before voicing them out loud.” Another
wrote that the group experience gave her an under-
standing of how her family role influenced the use of
her individual voice within other groups. “It also
helped me become more aware of the power of the
‘silent voice’ within me.” She went on to say the
group experience “helped facilitate controlling my
individual voice, since it sometimes gets too loud.”
In our T-group, there were two main forms of
silence. Silence appeared in the form of not produc-
ing art and in not using words to speak the unspoken
feelings. Contemplative practice teaches us to notice
the gaps of silence in between moments. These
spaces provide an opportunity for people to notice the
energy that arises during silence and then to observe
their tendency to act or not. We observed these mo-
ments in the T-group and refrained from talking,
thereby learning a new way of being with ourselves.
Silence is a space of many textures. It does not
always feel the same, but differs depending on the
situation. Sometimes the silence would be thick and
murky, which expressed the feeling of being stuck
and seeing no end to the discomfort. Other days the
silence would feel open and vast as members grasped
at a new understanding of what it meant to be alive
and connecting with others in an authentic way. The
more a person is able to sit in silence, the more he or
she will be able to explore the many aspects that a
silent space can hold.
These gaps of silence in the T-group revealed that
both the verbal and quiet members had different
struggles with silence. The silent members had to
work up the courage to talk, and the verbal members
needed to summon the courage to sit silently. Both
seemed to be having a lot of internal activity during
these moments of struggle. Nontalkers spent a lot of
the time trying to stay present and to notice when
they had something to say. They also tried to pay
attention to what their bodies were telling them. “As
I spoke, I tried to not abandon myself, but rather to
breathe and slowly state what I wanted to say,” ex-
plained one member. The more verbal members also
returned to contemplative concepts as they attempted
to sit quietly and to be with their own process. Some
of the members struggled with their discomfort dur-
ing the silences and with their need to fill it up with
anything in order for the silence to end. It was diffi-
cult to stay in that open unknown space. As one
member said, “I use words to stay away from feel-
ings.” In this group, the talkers attempted to stop
themselves in that space of discomfort and take note
of what was happening. This contrasting struggle
reminds us that the “underlying psychodynamics that
 N. Swan–Foster et al. / The Arts in Psychotherapy 28 (2001) 161–174
contribute to effusiveness can be the same as those
that generate silence” (Gans & Counselman, 2000, p.
75).
Our struggle was to make space for both the
talkers and the nontalkers in the group, while at the
same time we struggled with the conflict of what to
do with the split circle. The halves were eventually
taped together (Fig. 8) and “stomped” on, first acci-
dentally and then deliberately. Like the group chant,
there was now a group stomping. Taping the paper
suggested a group desire to join the talkers and the
nontalkers in the actual group while also suggesting
an internal joining of the talker with the nontalker for
individuals. Along with repairing the split, the taping
could be viewed as initially “band-aiding” the split
until it was healed. Stomping on the paper illustrated
energy moving within the group with anger ex-
pressed towards art materials, art therapy, or, more
directly, against the leader, who felt dismissed and
disregarded. The leader observed her desire to retal-
iate in anger. The group successfully induced these
feelings in the leader to let her know of their own
experiences of feeling split, unseen, violated, or dis-
regarded.
The tension that occurred during the T-group
caused some members to “meet their edge.” Chodron
(1997) describes meeting one’s edge as the time
when “. . . . we come to the place where we think we
can’t handle whatever is happening. It’s too much.
It’s gone too far. We feel bad about ourselves. . . .
Basically, life has just nailed us” (p. 13). The leader
immediately met her edge when coming into an al-
ready formed group, knowing very little about the
students. She stated, “I wondered whether or not I
could survive this group. For me it was like hang
gliding, finding invisible streams of air as I got to
know the climate of the group. Staying present by
slowing myself down and paying attention to my
breathing was an essential gauge of my pacing as a
leader.” One group member stated: “I met my own
edge during a session when I felt anger at another
member, but at the same time anger at myself. The
experience was very powerful and I felt shakiness in
my body that felt as if it would destroy me. My first
instinct was to stop breathing and cut myself off from
the intense emotions.” Chodron (1997) finds that this
is a common response, but suggests that one do the
opposite. She suggests embracing the feeling or en-
ergy and really trying to stay with it, letting it “pierce
us to the heart” (p. 15). We are not accustomed to
allowing this to happen, so again it takes practice to
cultivate this. The same member said “I found that I
could allow some emotions to touch me this deeply,
like isolation and sadness, but with anger I needed to
practice the touch and go method.”
The “touch and go method” is basically just what
171
it sounds like (Wegela, 1992). One goes into the
feeling and touches it with attention and then backs
away. This process can be repeated and each time one
may be working toward increasing the “touch” time.
One way of allowing time for touching the moment
was to ring the bell that we had in the group. The bell
was rung at the beginning and end of each group
session, and could also be rung if any member
wanted to stop the group for a moment of silence or
for clarification from the leader. One group member
remembered her experience: “Instead of trying to run
away from my emotions, I chose to ring the bell. At
this point, the group stopped and there were a few
seconds of silence. I found this silence to be ex-
tremely helpful in finding my breath and coming into
contact with the inner tension.”
Maitri was important during the difficult times of
the T-group. One member wrote about how using
maitri in the group supported her in learning about
herself. “I would sit. . . and internally scold myself
for not talking more or for sharing too much too
quickly. . . but sometimes I would stop and remind
myself of maitri. I would try to accept myself for who
I am. I am not perfect and do things wrong, but that
is part of being alive and open to learning. I was
learning about myself and also about myself in rela-
tion to others.”
In the next two groups, we drew with pastels on
the circle and we found a deeper sense of intimacy
and a “here and now” focus that brought issues and
feelings into awareness both through words and
through images. Some members said “I don’t want
this group to end.” The shapes and figures reaching
and stretching towards the center evolved into a man-
dala that we felt represented a true community, a
community we discovered through communication
and taking action. The art making process illustrated
how we moved through conflict and resistance into a
mostly generative group with creative expression that
accepted diversity and autonomy. A rhythm “be-
tween intimacy and conflict” was experienced as the
T-group moved between using words and using art to
express themselves (Unger, 1990, p. 358).
The Mandala Mural (Fig. 9) was also a turning
point in the acculturation process, which was high-
lighted by the member who had taken notes in the
earlier session. In session 13, she used her voice to
ask permission to write each group member’s name
around the edge of the mandala. This action could be
interpreted as a corrective emotional experience since
she found a way to use both her voice and her writing
in a way that was acceptable to the group norms of
respect, safety, and confidentiality (Yalom, 1995).
Adding the names around the outside of the circle
honored each individual as participating in the whole.
The Mandala Mural was now a subtle but powerful
172 N. Swan–Foster et al. / The Arts in Psychotherapy 28 (2001) 161–174
Fig. 10. Final mural.
metaphor for group members being recognized as
individuals within the container of the group mind
(McClure, 1998). Metaphorically, the image of the
circle suggested the world—the group world—that
holds many names, many cultures, and many voices.
The final mural
The final mural was one of the ways group mem-
bers expressed feelings about ending, and was the
culmination of the T-group (Fig. 10). The materials
that had been brought to the collage box throughout
the 15 weeks were now available to use in the last
mural. In the box were various found objects that
were described by the leader as “things we would
take from the group or things we would give to the
group as a way to say good-bye.” The last session
was for some members tinged with ambivalence. We
were not really ending as a group; we would gather
again in classes next semester. Certainly we were
ending as an art therapy T-group, and losing the
unique group format with our leader. Again, the mul-
tirelationships and ethical standards surfaced.
Despite the tension, the last sessions revealed the
issues of separation and loss Brabender (1992) de-
scribes in stage four. Elements of the group voice
were expressed in the images on the mural: eyes;
dots; outstretched arms; rivers; butterflies; leaves and
vines. In the mural, the leaves were falling from the
tree, suggesting transformation and an ending. The
water in the rivers was moving on into distant, un-
known territory, suggesting that autonomy was more
acceptable as we moved toward the next step in our
group journey. Our process was not predictable but
more of a spiraling through the unknown, moment by
moment, with mutual respect for each other. We
made choices about the level of investment in the
ending process, and both the leader and group mem-
bers respected individual levels of involvement.
The various activities planned for the last day
included writing, talking, and art images, allowing
each individual to give in the way she felt most
comfortable and to take what she needed from the
newly formed group voice. The flowing, circular pro-
cess of moving from individuality to mutuality and
back to a greater understanding of the individual was
made apparent on this last day. As one member said,
“we were enveloped in a knowing uncertainty” as we
left behind this T-group experience.
Conclusion
Although this paper is by no means a comprehen-
sive review of a 15-week same gender art therapy
T-group, we have gleaned a greater understanding of
the various multirelationships and the multiple layers
of group dynamics and how they affected our T-
group. We have seen how some members used the
T-group to experiment with their art, their words, and
their contemplative practice, and how, much to their
surprise, mutual respect was woven throughout the
art therapy T-group even when conflict was present.
The group discovered that the diversity of cultural
experiences established a richer ground for commu-
nication and trust, although at first it was experienced
 N. Swan–Foster et al. / The Arts in Psychotherapy 28 (2001) 161–174
as conflict, anger, mistrust, and resistance. The T-
group broke through the resistance by listening to the
nontalkers and talkers, modifying ethical standards
for a training group, and waking to multicultural and
gender factors that affected the group dynamics. Con-
flict and anger with each other, with the group as a
whole, and with the leader were addressed several
times throughout the process, out of which tender
moments of realization and intimate connection oc-
curred.
Although unclear at the time, the rhythm of mak-
ing art led the group to accept the flow between
words and art, and to trust in the moment as part of
the group goal. In addition, the risk to redefine
boundaries and safety as self-protection rather than
only resistance led to greater honesty and mutual
acceptance within the group. We discovered that hon-
esty was not something that could split us, but it
could change us.
This T-group experience demonstrates that the
ethical challenges with art therapy T-groups need to
be consistently addressed with students by the leader,
and that resistance is a positive reaction to the class
syllabus or contract (Unger, 1990). We learned that
when the leader openly revisits the various sources of
resistance, the group tension relaxes and the group
can progress. By learning about resistance in a T-
group, we became better prepared to work with man-
dated or inpatient populations because our student
status is much like those mandated requirements es-
tablished by legal or insurance agencies.
We also learned that it is helpful when the leader
tolerates the group’s resistance to art making by not
enforcing the “time to make art” expectation, but
instead reminds the group of the available materials.
By allowing this exploration, we experienced the
nuances between words and art making and how it
related to self-disclosure and safety. We noticed how
the subtle flow between words and art is not easily
navigated, and how we individually react to group
conflicts and lack of progress. In doing so, we also
re-established our group norms by redefining care-
taking, resistance, silence, safety, and self-disclosure,
while building communication skills that will support
us during times of tension and conflict. We also
learned how the art materials document and reflect
the resistance to the contract even when the group is
NOT making art but simply looking at and talking
about art supplies. We discovered how art is, in fact,
important to us.
In future situations when resistance stems from
ethical, gender, and multicultural issues or from ex-
pectations regarding art directives and materials, we
will have some experience with noticing and unearth-
ing conflicts. We will trust in our contemplative and
transpersonal perspectives as a context for working
173
as group leaders; we will accept that each group finds
its own way with the rhythm between cohesion and
conflict.
Because we learned that it is helpful to be in the
moment, to not force the progress of a group or to
jump too quickly to fix the conflicts, we will be better
prepared to engage in the complex layers within the
group process. In particular, we did eventually rec-
ognize the practice of being in the moment as an
acceptable goal without having to find a conclusive
understanding of our T-group experience. At the very
least, T-groups offer this valuable learning for future
therapists in the creative arts.
Last but not least, we understand our group’s need
to support and educate the general creative arts ther-
apy community. The process of how we came to find
our voices through words and art-making within a
group is now visible through printed words. This
T-group hopes that our willingness to communicate
and take action will make a difference for future
creative arts therapy T-group members and their
leaders. The following is an appropriate closing for
us all to remember: “By invoking such feelings. . . we
are stretching . . . against the boundaries and igno-
rance of our own minds and hearts. And in the
stretching, painful as it sometimes is, we expand, we
grow, we change ourselves, we change the world”
(Kabat–Zinn, 1994).
Acknowledgment
We would like to extend our appreciation to the
remaining T-group for their consent and encourage-
ment in publishing this material. Without their par-
ticipation this would not be possible.
References
Beck, C. J. (1989). Everyday zen: love and work. San
Francisco: Harper.
Becker, B. J. (1972). The psychodynamics of analytic group
psychotherapy. American Journal of Psychoanalysis,
32, 177–185.
Bernardez, T. (1996). Women’s therapy groups as the treat-
ment of choice. In B. DeChant (Ed.), Women and group
psychotherapy (pp. 242–262). New York: Guilford
Press.
Brabender, V. (1992). The psychological growth of women
in a short-term inpatient group. Group, 16 (3), 131–145.
Carter, W., Conger, D., Finer, J., Israel, S., Kwiatkowsky,
H., Lachman–Chapin, M., Michal, S., Nerstingen, G.,
St. Germain, L., Tanner, L., & Williams, K. (1978). A
student group art therapy experience. American Journal
of Art Therapy, 17, 131–139.
Chodron, P. (1991). The wisdom of no escape and the path
of loving-kindness. Boston: Shambhala.
174 N. Swan–Foster et al. / The Arts in Psychotherapy 28 (2001) 161–174
Chodron, P. (1997). When things fall apart: heart advice for
difficult times. Boston: Shambhala.
Corey, M., & Corey, G. (1997). Groups: process and prac-
tice. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole Publishing.
Cortright, B. (1997). Psychotherapy and spirit: theory and
practice in transpersonal psychotherapy. Albany:
SUNY Press.
DeChant, B. (Ed.) (1996). Women and group psychother-
apy: theory and practice. New York: Guilford Press.
Davis, J. (2000). We keep asking ourselves, what is
transpersonal psychology? Guidance & Counseling, 15
(3), 3– 8.
Farrelly–Hansen, M. (1998). Transpersonal art therapy.
Unpublished manuscript.
Fenchel, G., & Flapan, D. (1985). Resistance in group
psychotherapy. Group, 9 (2), 35– 47.
Firman, J., & Gila, A. (1997). The primal wound: a
transpersonal view of trauma, addiction, and growth.
New York: State University of New York Press.
Franklin, M., Farrelly-Hansen, M., Marek, B., Swan–Foster,
N., & Wallingford, S. (2000). Transpersonal art therapy
education. Journal of the American Art Therapy Asso-
ciation, 17 (2), 101–110.
Franklin, M. (1999). Becoming a student of oneself: acti-
vating the witness in meditation, art, and super-vision.
American Journal of Art Therapy, 38 (3), 2–13.
Gans, J., & Counselman, E. (2000). Silence in group psy-
chotherapy: a powerful communication. International
Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 50 (1), 71– 86.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge: Har-
vard Press.
Haeseler, M. P. (1992). Ethical considerations for the group
therapist. American Journal of Art Therapy, 31 (1), 2–9.
Jordan, J., & Kaplan, A. (Eds.) (1991). Women’s growth in
connection: writings from the stone center. New York:
Guilford Press.
Kabat–Zinn, J. (1994). Where ever you go, there you are:
mindfulness meditation in everyday life. New York:
Hyperion.
Levine, E. (1989). Women and creativity: art-in-relation-
ship. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 16 (4), 309 –325.
Malchiodi, C. (1999). Artists and clinicians: can we be
both? Journal of the American Art Therapy Association,
Volume, 16 (3), 110 –111.
McClure, B. (1998). Putting a new spin on groups: the
science of chaos. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum As-
sociates.
Ormont, L. (1992). The group therapy experience. New
York: St. Martin’s Press.
Peck, M. S. (1987). The different drum: community-making
and peace. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Sanford, G. (2000). Compassionate curiosity: a transper-
sonal bridge in multicultural counseling. Guidance &
Counseling, 15 (3), 33–37.
Salvendy, J. (1999). Ethnocultural considerations in group
psychotherapy. International Journal of Group Psycho-
therapy, 49 (4), 429 – 464.
Shaverien, J. (1992). The revealing image: analytical art
psychotherapy in theory and practice. London: Rout-
ledge.
Skaife, S., & Huet, V. (1998). Art psychotherapy groups:
Between pictures and words. London: Routledge.
Swan–Foster, N., Lawlor, M., & Scott, L. (1999). A place
for voice in a short-term transpersonal art therapy
training group. [Cassette recording No.105, American
Art Therapy Association Conference]. Denver, CO: Na-
tional Audio Video.
Taylor, K. (1993). The ethics of caring: honoring the web of
life in our professional healing relationships. Santa
Cruz, CA: Hanford Mead Publishers.
Unger, B. (1990). Conflict management in group psycho-
therapy. Small Group Research, 21 (3), 349 –359.
Wadeson, H. (1987). The dynamics of art psychotherapy.
New York: John Wiley.
Waller, D. (1996). Group interactive art therapy: it’s use in
training and treatment. New York: Routledge Press.
Winnicott, D. W. (1982). Playing and reality. London:
Tavistock Publications.
Wegela, K. K. (1992). Touch and go. In J. Wellwood (Ed.),
Ordinary magic: everyday life as spiritual path (pp.
171–179). Boston, MA: Shambhala.
Worell, J., & Remer, P. (1992). Feminist perspectives in
therapy: an empowerment model for women. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Yalom, I. (1995). The theory and practice of group psycho-
therapy. New York: Basic Books.