Josephine Hicks- Article Review 2

Josephine Hicks

WGST 202

T/Th 12:30-1:45

Professor Currans

Blog Topic: Sexuality and Visual Art

Article Review #2

Metzl, Einat S. “Artistic, Therapeutic, and Sexually Informed: A Five-Week Human Sexuality

Course for Art Therapy Students.” American Journal of Sexuality Education 8.4 (2013):

191-212. Taylor & Francis Online. Web.

In “Artistic, Therapeutic, and Sexually Informed: A Five-Week Human Sexuality

Course for Art Therapy Students”, Einat Metzl discusses the learning outcomes and the development of a five-week human sexuality course that she instructed for art therapy and family therapy students. She argues that these therapists “are responsible for having a solid awareness, knowledge, and skills related to sexuality and sexual identity in order to [fully] support their clients” (Metzl 191). However, she claims, gaining awareness, knowledge, and skills related to sexuality is a challenge for many therapists. Metzl’s main argument is that visual narratives, art making, and creative intervention can assist in educating and preparing therapists to better support their clients by increasing their awareness, knowledge, and skills in addressing sex and sexuality with them (Metzl 191 & 212).

Metzl begins by introducing that the course was made with the idea that there is a need for multicultural counseling competence (MCC) training. MCC training trains a therapist to effectively work with individuals and families from diverse cultural backgrounds. The course was developed with this idea in mind. The course, as Metzl explained it, was “a brief human sexuality course that included expressive tools was designed for 25 art therapy students in the Loyola Marymount University graduate program and carried out first in January–February 2010” (Metzl 192-193).

The “expressive tools” that were used were art-making, role playing, and a classroom response system (“clickers”). These tools were used in addition to classic educational tools such as: lectures, handouts, guest speakers, and PowerPoint presentations. Art-making consisted of a brief image making experience that was followed by reflective writing and/or discussion. Role-playing consisted of students working in pairs. One student would be the client while the other was the therapist. They would reenact clinical scenarios of “intake, assessment, and diagnosis of sexual concerns” (Metzl 194). The last tool Metzl mentioned, a classroom response system (“clickers), was used to enable students to immediately, safely, and anonymously participate all at the same time in the classroom.

Metzl used all three of these tools to discuss sexuality, anatomy and human sexuality development, sexual disorders and challenges, gender roles and sexual orientation, and sex therapy and sex addiction. The course followed key concepts of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) guidelines (Sexuality and Education Council of the United States, 2004): human development, relationships, personal skills, sexual behaviors, sexual health, and societal and cultural considerations. Sexuality training requirements specified by the Board of Behavioral Health were also integrated into the course.

Metzl then shared students’ experiences. She shared both samples of art making and narrative reflections in order to illustrate the progression of the course. She claimed that these experiences “increased [students’] interest in sexuality training, growing awareness and knowledge, and a beginning attempt to integrate sexuality into their clinical practice” (Metzl 204). Metzl also shares the students’ evaluations of the course.  The evaluations are displayed by figures that are found at the end of her article. Metzl had twenty-two students in her class, who happened to all be female. Fourteen students responded to the survey. Overall, when looking at the figures, the course seemed effective and meaningful to students (Metzl 204). Most students found the expressive teaching tools to be useful and engaging. She suggests that because these tools worked in the classroom to help prepare therapists to work with clients from diverse backgrounds, these tools could also work to provide “training therapists with an in-depth understanding of human experiences within systematic framework” (Metzl 209).  Metzl also suggests, in her conclusion, that further investigation concerning gender roles be done in order to further the effectiveness of the course, so that both males and females alike can benefit from the course (Metzl 210). This is particularly because all of the students in her course were female. She claims that this may be because women may be more comfortable with exploring their feelings through art making (Metzl 211).

All in all, this article shed some light on my blog topic: sexuality and visual art. Metzl describes how art making can teach people about sex and their preconceived notions of sexuality. She concludes that art-making can increase a person’s awareness, knowledge, and skills in addressing sexual topics. The topic of this article relates to Catharine Lumby’s “Ambiguity, Children, Representation, and Sexuality”. Both authors aim to have people understand that biases create representations and perceptions of sexuality that may not be true. Lumby has her audience understand by informing about how children are accidentally objectified by adults who try protecting them from sexual predators. In Lumby’s article, we are shown that adults ignore the subjecthood of children in photographs because of their own fears and ideas concerning the representation of sexuality. Metzl also addresses these biases, especially those that create stereotypes concerning sexuality. Her course aimed to show her students that everyone has their own individualized ideas concerning sexuality. Metzl taught her students that those ideas lead to biases that create potentially problematic perceptions of a future client that may not be true.  The difference between these two author’s articles is that Lumby talked about how the subject in pictures were ignored and differentiated from their viewer, whereas Metzl talked about how the viewers and makers of art (students) were brought together through their differences. All in all, I would recommend reading Metzl’s article, as it definitely opened me up to thinking about how people can come together even when so many opinions may set them apart.