The presence of art therapy in art classrooms quickly provoked unrest. Edward Rannells (1946) went so far as to call the inclusion of art therapy in the art classroom a “distortion and misuse of art in education (p. 36)”. During the 1950s, art educators moved away from self expression and favored more structure in their lessons. The sentiment was that art teachers should stick to what they know and not include the second hand practice of other fields in their lesson plans. A grievance from Kaufman (1963) captures the mood: "the art room is often a ludicrous mixture of expert guidance from many fields. There is rich farce in hearing the art teacher conscientiously mouth the words of the psychologist (developmental growth, therapy, stereotype, norms, and so on)... (p. 18)".
This shift forced art therapists to cling tightly to their roots in psychology, to conduct research, and to advocate for their field. Naumburg (1955), often considered the grandmother of art education, helped shift the focus of art therapy away from classroom settings and onto its psychological origins by reminding therapists that "analytically oriented art therapy has become possible as a consequence of Freud's achievement in recording the psychological mechanisms of unconscious response in man (p. 443)". With this reestablished foundation, art therapist wrapped up the 1950s no longer depending on the field of art education to provide settings for their practice.
The 60s were a coming of age decade for art therapy. The field stood on its own, and the American Art Therapy Association (2013) was founded in 1969. Following its founding, substantial research was conducted and guided by scholars such as Wadeson (1980) who developed new research methods, Kramer (1979) who helped identify both overlapping and unique functions of art education and art therapy, and Gantt (1998) who called for a more scientific approach to data collection and evaluation in art therapy. One misunderstanding that crept up as the field distinguished itself was the belief that art therapy focused on the process of making art while art education focused on the creative product. This is an oversimplification of a complex overlap. Kramer (1979) hashes out these issues in an article concluding with the assertion that “...what links art therapy to art education is understanding of the productive process and genuine respect for the products which are the result of children's creative efforts (p. 17)”.
This shift forced art therapists to cling tightly to their roots in psychology, to conduct research, and to advocate for their field. Naumburg (1955), often considered the grandmother of art education, helped shift the focus of art therapy away from classroom settings and onto its psychological origins by reminding therapists that "analytically oriented art therapy has become possible as a consequence of Freud's achievement in recording the psychological mechanisms of unconscious response in man (p. 443)". With this reestablished foundation, art therapist wrapped up the 1950s no longer depending on the field of art education to provide settings for their practice.
The 60s were a coming of age decade for art therapy. The field stood on its own, and the American Art Therapy Association (2013) was founded in 1969. Following its founding, substantial research was conducted and guided by scholars such as Wadeson (1980) who developed new research methods, Kramer (1979) who helped identify both overlapping and unique functions of art education and art therapy, and Gantt (1998) who called for a more scientific approach to data collection and evaluation in art therapy. One misunderstanding that crept up as the field distinguished itself was the belief that art therapy focused on the process of making art while art education focused on the creative product. This is an oversimplification of a complex overlap. Kramer (1979) hashes out these issues in an article concluding with the assertion that “...what links art therapy to art education is understanding of the productive process and genuine respect for the products which are the result of children's creative efforts (p. 17)”.