Reflections on Assessment in Art Therapy: Can We Ever Be Truly Objective?

Photo by Dan Cook on Unsplash

Recently, in a conversation with a colleague about how to select the right therapeutic approach for each individual client, I suddenly said:

“Of course, art therapy practices can’t be tested on laboratory mice. We have to rely on the accumulated experience of other art therapists and case studies from real human encounters.”

We both laughed, but that moment opened a deeper discussion — about how complex and subjective the process of assessment in art therapy really is. Andrea Gilroy explores this in her insightful article “What’s Best for Whom? Assessment in Art Therapy,” raising important questions about the limits of objectivity in our field.

My colleague added several powerful points to our discussion:

1. The Shadow of the Researcher — How do we deal with the collective subjective opinions of art therapists, psychologists, and psychotherapists involved in assessment and treatment planning? Collective judgment can be biased — after all, even the execution of Giordano Bruno was once a “collective decision.”

2. External Auditing in Art Therapy — Should there be an independent, objective system for evaluating art therapy practice? What could such an audit even look like in a field so deeply personal and creative?

3. The Relationship Factor — The client–therapist relationship itself plays a crucial role in assessment and diagnosis. Yet this relationship is inherently subjective, fluid, and sometimes unstable. A client’s perception of the therapist may shift, and at times, clients themselves may bring toxicity or projection into the dynamic.

4. Who Defines a “Good Art Therapist”? — Our field still lacks clear standards or reputation systems for what makes an art therapist effective, ethical, or skillful.

5. The Financial Dimension — Art therapy remains a relatively new and unfamiliar service for many. Clients may not fully understand whether they need it, while therapists, facing financial pressures, might be tempted to offer sessions that serve their income more than the client’s actual need.

How do we hold all these contradictions at once — the subjective and the systemic, the relational and the ethical, the creative and the economic?Perhaps the answer lies not in eliminating subjectivity, but in acknowledging it openly — approaching each client, and each decision, with humility, self-reflection, and an awareness of our own “researcher’s shadow.”