Invited Article

Research on Social Work Practice

2019, Vol. 29(6) 687-692
Art and the Social Work Profession: Shall ª The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
Ever the Twain Meet? DOI: 10.1177/1049731519863109
journals.sagepub.com/home/rsw

Marilyn L. Flynn1

Abstract
Despite evidence of widespread increasing interest in the arts as mechanisms for personal and social change, social work
is conspicuous for its lack of organized conceptual attention to this area. This article argues that there are four potential
perspectives that might be adopted as a means of expanding social work science and professional practice: the arts as adjunct to
clinical treatment and healing, the arts as the “work” in social work, the arts as tool for social investment, and the arts as driver of
political and ideological commitment. An argument is presented for a new vision of the profession in academic environments in
which the arts are defined as one of the fundamental pillars. This might lead to reimagining of scholarship, the reconstruction of
social work education, and acceleration of social reform.

Keywords
creativity, expressive therapies, social change, phenomenology, socialist realism

The place of science in social work has advanced rapidly over
the past 25 years, including a rich dialog on the philosophy of
science as it applies to the social work profession. In a much
less pervasive but equally important way, the question of how
the arts relate—or should relate—to the field of social work has
also gained traction. Discoveries in neuroscience have intro-
duced new empirical grounding for the value of mindfulness,
expressive therapies, and spirituality (Land, 2015). An expand-
ing literature on “socially engaged art” or “social practice” that
draws on traditions of advocacy and passion for social justice
among artists themselves has added impetus (Helguera, 2012).
In Europe, a rethinking of phenomenology in philosophy has
enlivened a fresh examination of social work practice itself as art.
As a consequence, growing numbers of interested students,
faculty, and professionals across the nation are investigating
the effect of the arts on behavior or harnessing the arts in
service of practice. A subtext among these groups is the need
to harness other dimensions of human experience and under-
standing as a necessary counterpoise to the world as interpreted
through quantitative science and technology. Artists are
honored as guardians of human emotion and subjective expe-
rience. Supporters argue that the arts are liberating in a unique
way, that participation and exposure engage soul and mind.
Yet, this romanticism has not served our field well.
Today, we lack a robust examination of the place of art in
social work. One of the primary obstacles to this pursuit is the
lack of philosophical maturity in our field. Social work does
not have much to draw on in constructing a new and more
powerful model of the profession that includes the arts. As a
consequence, formal integration of the arts in teaching,
research, and practice can best be described as idiosyncratic.
The form, purposes, knowledge base, and rationale for use of
the arts therefore vary widely, depending largely on local and
personal initiative. Perhaps most importantly, the creative
activity of scholars, practitioners, and artists themselves does
not translate into a cumulative literature or a systematic body of
scholarship within the field of social work. We lack a knowl-
edge base, an organized perspective that might lay out the path
for more meaningful future development of the arts in social
work practice. This would seem to be the most essential ingre-
dient in forming a vigorous and more defensible area for edu-
cation, research, and professional engagement. Would
recognition of art as a fundamental component of professional
education change how universities and accrediting bodies
construct the experience of social work students and require-
ments in the curriculum? Would our scholarship be reima-
gined? Is there even a compelling reason to reexamine the
field in this way?
Social work is occupied with the problems of promoting
social change, advancing human potential, and increasing
knowledge of the human condition. Art, as one of the earliest
forms of human expression, has purposes that both overlap and
extend beyond these aims. Finding the nexus between the two
1
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
Corresponding Author:
Marilyn L. Flynn, University of Southern California, 214 MRF, Los Angeles,
CA 90089, USA.
Email: mflynn@usc.edu
688
must begin with the identification of places of convergence.
This article proposes three frameworks that capture this con-
vergence but in significantly different ways. The points of
commonality involve the definition of art as social or beha-
vioral intervention and also involve an established institutional
or professional base. These are leverage points that social work
might use to raise the profile of the arts in practice or even as a
new way of conceiving the foundations of our profession.
The first framework—art in clinical practice as an agent of
physical and mental healing—is well established, with funded
research and emerging professional recognition outside the
social work field. It is most rooted as a part of specialty prac-
tices in music, theater, painting, and architecture. The second
framework—art as a tool for social change and reconstruc-
tion—draws on traditions of community advocacy and other
techniques that aim at altering the face of under-resourced
neighborhoods and reducing social divisions. It draws upon
economics, urban planning, and perhaps the settlement move-
ment for inspiration and validation. The third framework—art
as instrument for producing ideological conformity or building
commitment to national policies—has been employed by gov-
ernments, nonprofit entities, and others. This avenue builds on
modern communication methods, marketing, and theories of
psychological influence, with art as the medium for reinforcing
policy aims.
In sum, the question of the arts in social work can be
addressed concerning whether—and how—they might contrib-
ute to preparation for clinical practice, their potential for accel-
erating social reform, or their value in adding to social cohesion
and commitment to shared beliefs. Each line of inquiry draws
on separate traditions and wellsprings of insight.
What Is Art?
The definition of “art” is a subject that has been mixed through-
out history with magic, religion, healing, culture—in short,
almost every aspect of human interaction and self-expression.
Debates among philosophers have raged without satisfactory
resolution, leading Walton (1997), a philosopher of aesthetics,
to write:
It is not at all clear that these words—“What is art?”—express
anything like a single question, to which competing answers are
given, or whether philosophers proposing answers are even
engaged in the same debate. The sheer variety of proposed defini-
tions should give us pause. One cannot help wondering whether
there is any sense in which they are attempts to clarify the same
cultural practices, or address the same issue. (p. 148)
This warning language is worth heeding in considering the
possible intersections between social work and art. It under-
scores the reality that scholars and activists will enter this
dialog with an unspoken but wide variance in their underlying
assumptions, bringing a halt to real conversation almost before
it has begun. Philosophers have largely given up on a unifying
theory. Practitioners are self-referential: The arts are what they
Research on Social Work Practice 29(6)
know or practice. Activists, in contrast, are focused on the
public at large and on capturing themes of social justice. As
Walton observed, there is a general cacophony. Beneath this
diversity of perspective lies an even more essential division: art
as universal phenomenon with aesthetic properties that cross
national boundaries and cultures or art as locally and histori-
cally bound and individually perceived (Adajian, 2016). There
are also side skirmishes about whether art is primarily visual or
includes movement and sound, or whether literature, drama,
and interactive games belong in the pantheon. The principles
that define the properties and elements of art as understood by
Western critics cannot be ignored, but at the same time may not
be relevant to social work practice. This will depend on the
models for collaboration or incorporation that are adopted by
social work.
Another, possibly more productive, approach to the defini-
tion of art might be filtered through the lens of our professional
orientation and all that that implies. Looking outward from our
own accepted boundaries of knowledge and skill, the definition
of art as an occupation rather than a profession has important
consequences (Art, n.d.). Occupations are typically delineated
by sets of skills that individuals use to earn a livelihood or as a
way of enriching life experience. By contrast, professions as a
modern bureaucratic and social invention are more complex
legally and organizationally (Freidson, 1988). Occupations
gradually become designated as professions when they succeed
in specifying their knowledge base, drawing boundaries in
relation to other disciplines, setting standards and evaluative
processes for training, and committing to public accountability
for ethical practice, among many other characteristics (Wheel-
wright, 2000). Social work today draws upon other occupations
to assist in meeting professional goals and could do so as well
with the arts. In this event, collaboration between artists and
social workers would not require a definition of art itself but
rather how art in all its manifestations would support our pro-
fessional skill development.
Turning the professional lens inward to the nature of prac-
tice itself raises an entirely different potential frame of refer-
ence. As noted earlier, art was omnipresent in the earliest forms
of civilization and clearly occupies some universal place in the
human mind across time and culture. These properties of art
have been the subject of modern ontology and phenomenology,
as philosophy seeks to explain art and its effect on human
consciousness and human interaction. Modern science and the
scientific method have made observation and measurement
the sine qua non for knowledge development. Accordingly, the
science of social work today is in part dedicated to the con-
trolled documentation of transactions and outcomes of practice.
Thus far, few contemporary scholars have successfully applied
science to the analysis of practice as an art form. This may
require a different philosophical context than the profession has
used, leading to revised ideas about how observation should
take place and the criteria for measurement.
In the present article, we can only hint at the ways in which
an analysis of social work practice would be affected by new
philosophical underpinnings and implications for a useful
Flynn
professional definition of art. As an initial foray, this article
suggests what phenomenology might offer, drawing on the
thinking of Martin Heidegger and Alain Badiou. Both have laid
a foundation for a fresh consideration of social work practice as
art and the potential linkage to some aspects of science (Badiou
& Toscano, 2005; Richardson, 2003).
Alternatively, again using a professional social work lens,
the role of art can be defined in relation to shared societal aims
as reflected in government and not-for-profit programs has
taken on a new definition outside traditional spheres—first,
as a form of economic investment in promoting social out-
comes, and second, as governmental investment in reifying
political ideology. While both practices have long-standing
roots in the patronage of kings, popes, and ancient conquerors,
the scale and resources are unique to contemporary society.
These activist orientations implicitly support the notion that art
must have a purpose. Thus, “art for art’s sake” may no longer
have sufficient social justification. As a profession, social
workers naturally turn to how our values of social justice,
political liberation, and social well-being might be enhanced
by the power of art, which is another arrow in our quiver.
In summary, art is defined in this article from four perspec-
tives: as an assistive healing agent, as a factor integral to the
interactive process between social worker and individual or
group, as a social investment strategy, and as an instrument for
political activism and control. The intent is to separate very
different potentialities in the expanded integration of the arts
and social work depending on the problem to be solved by the
profession.
Art as Clinical Component to Promote
Healing
The capacity of human beings for imagination and powerful
subjective experience appears to have been manifested with the
origin of our species somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000
years ago. Archaeologists suggest that the level of sophistica-
tion and integration of artistic behavior was comparatively lit-
tle different from today and was far more advanced than other
forms of technology or cultural organization. Most signifi-
cantly, a case can be made that the arts were very early asso-
ciated with therapy and healing, apparently as part of magical
rites to fight disease and death.
Despite a relative lack of empirical evidence, this idea
remains firmly rooted in contemporary literature. The arts are
widely accepted as promoting health and mental health, with
collateral beneficial effects on community social cohesion. At
the individual level, participation and creative expression in the
arts are viewed as a means of achieving recovery for those
suffering from mental illness. The strengthening of interperso-
nal connectedness, empathy, and improved social function are
also expected (Dyer & Hunter, 2009).
Art therapy has emerged as a recognized 21st-century pro-
fession, defined as a type of expressive therapy in which clients
create visual art as a means of examining and recognizing their
feelings. The art therapist follows both the process of creation
689
and the resulting artwork and comments on struggles the client
is experiencing with social relationships, low self-esteem, or
other sources of emotional or psychological pain. The objective
is to improve confidence, cope with addictive behavior, lower
anxiety, and restore effective social functioning. As described
by the American Art Therapy Association (n.d.),
Art therapy has the unique ability to unlock emotional expression
by facilitating nonverbal communication. This is especially useful
in cases where traditional psychotherapy has been ineffectual. Art
and art making are inherently perceptually and sensory based and
involve the brain and the body in ways that verbal language does
not. Art therapy provides an alternative means of communicating
for those who cannot find the words to express anxiety, pain, or
emotions as a result of trauma, combat, physical abuse, loss of
brain function, depression, and other debilitating health conditions.
(p. 1)
In addition to art therapy that relies principally on the visual
arts, dance therapy and music therapy also play increasingly
acknowledged roles in supporting recovery and sustaining health
(American Dance, n.d.; American Music, n.d.).
Over the past several decades, the connection between art
and healing has received serious attention from the medical
profession. It is estimated that over 300 professional organiza-
tions are attempting to systematically study and document how
the arts can affect both the development of illness and subse-
quent recovery. At the same time, artists have long intuitively
recognized that creative activity seems to engage other human
beings in a way that strengthens their ability to contend with the
impact of disease and to take greater advantage of medical
interventions. New foundations and associations are develop-
ing that seek to connect the artist, the medical world, and the
community to ensure that research-supported practices are
linked and more fully available (Taylor & Francis Foundation
for Art and Healing, 2017).
The relationship of art therapy to social work is self-evident,
and at its most concrete level, could be built out in terms of
stronger interprofessional connections such as joint degrees,
enhanced specializations and electives in social work programs,
and continuing education. The issue of whether these programs
produce “good” art is generally subordinated to the perceived
importance of participation in art activity itself. Consequently, a
social worker might not be expected to obtain much mastery
herself. It is also more likely that the art therapist will be assistive
to the social worker, psychiatrist, or physician, in which case, art
is adjunctive rather than central to the healing process. With
sharpened attention to the empirical outcome measurement of
art therapy, the standardization of interventions is likely to occur
in the future, intensifying the instrumental focus even further.
The Arts as the “Work” in Social Work
In 1986, English academic Hugh England published Social
Work as Art, which received wide circulation as a response
of the social work profession to overweening empiricism and
690
orientation toward science as the basis for practice (England,
1986). This seminal publication struck out in a fresh way to
interpret what might be meant by saying that social work itself
is an art. Rather than referring to social workers themselves as
practicing an art, which is familiar ground in the literature, he
focused on the transactional experience between the social
worker and client as the source of art. He argued that practi-
tioners draw upon their own subjective experience as the basis
for giving organized meaning to the experience of their clients.
As social worker and client engage with each other over time,
this conscious interchange between client and practitioner gen-
erates a process of mutual discovery and creation. England
describes this as a phenomenological “attunement” with the
client. Attunement is accomplished primarily through intuition
rather than reference to abstract knowledge or formulaic appli-
cation of research-supported protocols.
From this philosophical vantage point, the act of creativity is
central to the “work” of social work and lies at the heart of a
social worker’s ability to imagine her client’s world. Her skill
rests in the degree to which she is effective in using language that
is evocative and expressive in communicating her subjective
understanding. England proposes that irrespective of organiza-
tional constraints, policies, or accepted practices, social workers
ultimately always ground their decisions in intuition and emo-
tion in the moment. Thus, any theory of social work that also
draws on theories of art can help explain the role of subjectivity
in social work practice. England (1986) claimed that:
The social worker . . . like the poet, must bring together disparate
elements of the ordinary world, and . . . must do so with unusually
profound understanding, for this understanding must enrich the
understanding of . . . clients. It is in this sense that the worker is
creative; [s/he] is not just a critic understanding the meaning and
expression of others, but an artist giving expression to his own
understanding in a way that others will value. (p. 106–107)
England and subsequent academics who point to this rela-
tionship between social work and art are drawing upon the
language of phenomenology and social constructionism devel-
oped from many schools of thought during the last century. The
varieties of phenomenology defy a single definition. For the
purposes of this article, it is a perspective that is often con-
cerned with processes of human consciousness and intuition
that unite people with core meanings in experience. As Gray
and Webb (2008) put it, “Phenomenology is the description of
phenomena as a person experiences them.” The phenomenol-
ogist avoids imposing hypotheses or prior rules on the formula-
tion of experience but rather accepts whatever is presented as
real. The emphasis is on opening up rather than on reasoning or
assessing instrumental value and discovering “intentionality,”
the constant structures underlying human experience.
This way of examining experience can be closely associated
with social constructionism or theories postulating that the under-
standing of reality is actually based on jointly constructed inter-
pretations of reality based on social experience. These experiences
become consolidated through repeated social interactions and
Research on Social Work Practice 29(6)
habitual practices and subsequently form the basis for what people
accept as knowledge (Lock & Strong, 2010).
In the search for truth, then, empiricism and science offer one
method. The interesting aspect of England’s work and that of
others is that ontological questions are not avoided but redefined.
Quagmires abound in describing how objective structures can be
derived from subjective experience but suffice it to say that the
case can be made. Findings, discoveries, and the results of the
transaction between social work and client, whether individual or
societal, would then have to be measured in new ways, perhaps
borrowing from art criticism. The important point is that mea-
surement remains possible, objective states can be judged, and
outcomes can be redefined. In what might be a false opposition to
science and empiricism, phenomenology and related philosophi-
cal inquiry point to alternative ways in which objective methods
can be found that allow for the evaluation of subjective experi-
ence. Even the characterization of change itself in an individual
or society might be assessed by other criteria such as the resur-
gence of imagination or democratic vigor (Walker, 2017).
Art as a Tool for Social Investment
Social work bears all of the agreed-upon markers of a profession,
especially devotion to social values and ethics. As sociologists
have observed, the professions are given the latitude to set their
own standards, discipline their own members, and monopolize
their domains of practice on one condition: They must give
themselves over to the service of society and endeavor on the
behalf of their clients and not their own interests. They are
expected to advance social ideals and reflect that commitment
through a code of ethics. In social work, this translates into a
sense of obligation for achieving social justice and social inclu-
sion and the guarantees of human rights to health, housing,
achievement of potential, and adequate income. These values
are entirely consistent with the roots of the profession.
As public and private resources have gradually been
stretched across an expanding array of social needs and wants,
Western governments and philanthropies alike have grown
more preoccupied with the uses and the results of dollars spent
on social well-being. Accountability has reigned supreme
among the requirements imposed by funding institutions.
Because social work by definition relies heavily on public sup-
port, it has more or less subscribed to the idea that social
expenditures should be social investments that “buy” improved
conditions for marginalized or excluded individuals.
When applied to the arts, however employed by social workers
or allied professions, the emphasis on economic and social pay-
offs has had some thought-provoking consequences. Investment
in art as a mechanism for spreading social inclusion has been
popular in England and parts of Europe since the 1980s and, more
recently, in the United States. Both art and social work have been
intimately involved in urban renewal and community revitaliza-
tion; both lay claim to motivating and inspiring society’s least-
resourced citizens. As an instrument of central government social
or cultural policy, it remains unclear whether the investments
have achieved their desired goals. More recently, local
Flynn
governments have taken a larger part in independently moving
these projects along (Sharp, Pollock, & Paddison, 2005).
The new lexicon associated with grant seeking, accountabil-
ity and empirical measures of output in social work and the arts
is pervasive. The Department of Culture Media and Sport in
Great Britain has spoken in recent years of “public investment
to deliver outcomes,” for example, (Smith, 1999). The National
Endowment for the Humanities in the United States now lists
among its primary purposes the goal of “[bringing] financial
benefits to a community by stimulating cultural tourism, creating
jobs, and helping local businesses” (What We Do, 2017). Most
major grant-making organizations in the United States mirror
this orientation and therefore influence the scope and direction
of the arts. For example, in a recent address, Darren Wheeler of
the Ford Foundation reluctantly argued:
Listen to the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis. If the
issue is jobs, the arts and culture sector employed 4.8 million
people in 2014. If the issue is trade, our arts and culture sector
produces a trade surplus. And if the issue is the economy, just
remember that the arts contributed more than $730 billion to our
economy in a single year. (Walker, 2017, p. 1)
The more the arts are generally accepted as investments for
achieving defined social goals—say, reducing social inequality
or even creating new sources of employment like crafts pro-
duction—the less we value “art for art’s sake” or even the
quality of artistic products. Hull House carried out an interest-
ing experiment in this regard. Initially, like many of her social
reform–minded peers in 19th-century England, Jane Addams
saw art as a way of creating new jobs for immigrant women.
This experiment did not prove successful.
Addams’s colleague Ellen Gates Starr tried another option,
which was also popular in that era—seeing art as a way of reliev-
ing the barrenness of poverty and perhaps creating hope (Stankie-
wicz, 1989). She believed the display of traditional art works in an
environment of architectural splendor would “uplift” and connect
displaced and migrant populations to the “best” forms and expres-
sions of society. Today, critics would perhaps describe this form
of art appreciation as a pathway to cultural assimilation.
Certainly, in more current language, the arts continue to be
imagined as a means of increasing community participation,
empowering individuals, fostering inclusion, and promoting
rebirth in distressed communities (Sharp et al., 2005). However
appealing this vision may be, from this rationale, the arts remain
a tool, an instrument for improving social relationships and eco-
nomic activity. Subjugated to this end, the debates about what is
great or what is good in art fall to the wayside.
Art as Driver of Political and Ideological
Commitment
Art as a reflection of political ideology and government policy
aims has a long tradition in Western and Eastern societies alike.
Possibly the most conspicuous and sustained example in
691
modern history is Soviet socialist realism, which spanned from
the early 1930s until the turn of the 20th century.
Soviet socialist realism is interesting because the criteria for
this art form were governmentally imposed, linked clearly to
basic tenets of communist ideology, and defined as the only
permissible expression of the artistic impulse in society. Offi-
cials responsible for cultural policies denied the value of crea-
tivity and experimentation in art and architecture in the belief
that the purpose of art was to educate the public and idealize the
communist system. Art was expected to follow strictly repre-
sentational lines, consistently purveying positive images of
work, devotion to the communist party and class conscious-
ness. From a Soviet political perspective, everything in life was
expected to serve a purpose, to be functional, and art was no
exception. Its aim was to portray the ideal of a society orga-
nized around communist principles. As Georgi Plekhanov, a
Marxist theoretician, stated:
There can be no doubt that art acquired a social significance only in
so far as it depicts, evokes, or conveys actions, emotions and events
that are of significance to society. (Schwartz, 1980, p. 110)
Socialist realism enjoyed relatively few supporters outside
Eastern Europe, China, and a few other nations. It is often
dismissed as propaganda, given its intentional ties to the
advancement of government ideology. It is a clear and eligible
target for criticism of this kind, especially when accompanied
by the strict repression of all other artistic styles, as was the
case in the Soviet Union and the Soviet republics during the
Stalin era. However, to a less systematic degree, all govern-
ments have exploited the potential of art to strengthen political
identity and to paper over social ills. One intriguing illustration
is the endorsement by local governments in the United King-
dom of numerous art and architecture projects in deteriorated
urban neighborhoods, with the object of renewing community
life, of changing the image of run-down areas, even of improv-
ing employment. The results were generally seen as disappoint-
ing and were attacked as an effort by the government to conceal
worsening economic conditions by literally painting them over.
When does art become propaganda? This question was
recently explored by Sheryl Tuttle Ross in the Journal of Aes-
thetic Education. She identifies four characteristics of a message
that she sees as fundamental to propaganda: It is intended to
exert influence by a socially organized group or political insti-
tution; it is directed at a large and important target audience; and
it is designed to redirect or to confront others’ thoughts (Ross,
2002). Ross considers most definitions of propaganda as much
too narrow, emphasizing the importance of the propagandist’s
own beliefs and the context in which propaganda is developed.
She stresses that art has been used for centuries to disseminate
messages to the public, messages that offer new interpretations
of old ideas or that seek to alter people’s perceptions. Because art
appeals to emotion and not necessarily to truth, it is a logical
medium. Ross therefore underlines the importance of assessing
art in terms of both the circumstances under which it is produced
and the way in which it is used by those to whom it is directed.
692
Quo Vadis?
There are some generalizations that can be made in bringing
together the ideas presented thus far. The convergence between
the interests of artists and social workers has been underscored
in several ways—as a common connection to creativity, as
investment in social and cultural policy, as an instrument of
government ideology and control, and as congenial fellow tra-
velers in the healing professions. It is conceivable that social
workers and artists could band together, if they chose, around
all of these opportunities for collaboration, joint educational
projects, program development, and evaluation. However, that
course of action—or, rather, inaction—leaves both fields in the
same inchoate relationship they presently enjoy.
A new vision of the social work profession in the academic
environment might embrace three pillars to support research, ser-
vice, and education. The first pillar is science, including training
in the social sciences, critical thinking and scientific reasoning,
concepts of evidence, scientific research methods, and evidence-
based practices. The second pillar might be social innovation,
which is conceptually linked to business, engineering, economics,
technology, and modern communications theory. Because the
unending mission of social workers is change in social policy,
communities, and social relationships, a social innovation per-
spective might significantly strengthen the capacity of the profes-
sion to exert influence within and outside traditional domains. The
third pillar could be the arts or the shared artistic experience, with
content linked to the humanities, phenomenology, techniques for
the creative discovery of meaning in individual and group rela-
tionships, neuroscience, new methods of evaluation, and further
investigation into the role of the arts in healing and beyond. Ima-
gining the field of social work built upon these pillars opens up
remarkable possibilities for rethinking how the profession relates
to traditional partners and to partners yet undiscovered.
Author’s Note
This article was authored as part of the Arts & Social Work Round-
table held at the Islandwood Conference Center on Bainbridge Island
convened on June 19–20, 2017.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Marilyn L. Flynn https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9075-9621
References
About the American Art Therapy Association. (n.d.). Retrieved June
10, 2017, from https://arttherapy.org/aata-aboutus/
Adajian, T. (2016). The definition of art. The Stanford encyclopedia of
philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/
sum2016/entries/art-definition/
Research on Social Work Practice 29(6)
American Dance Therapy Association. (n.d.). Retrieved June 10,
2017, from https://adta.org/
American Music Therapy Association. (n.d.). Retrieved June 10,
2017, from http://www.musictherapy.org/about/musictherapy/
Art. (n.d.). Retrieved June 10, 2017, from https://www.merriam-web
ster.com/dictionary/art
Badiou, A., & Toscano, A. (2005). Handbook of inaesthetics. Stan-
ford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Dyer, G., & Hunter, E. (2009). Creative recovery: Art for mental
health’s sake. Australasian Psychiatry, 17, S146–S150.
England, H. (1986). Social work as art: Making sense for good prac-
tice. London, England: Allen & Unwin.
Freidson, E. (1988). Professional powers: A study of the institutiona-
lization of formal knowledge. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Gray, M., & Webb, S. A. (2008). Social work as art revisited. Inter-
national Journal of Social Welfare, 17, 182–193. doi:10.1111/
j.1468-2397.2008.00548
Helguera, P. (2012). Education for socially engaged art: Materials
and techniques handbook. New York, NY: Jorge Pinto Books.
Land, H. M. (2015). Spirituality, religion, and faith in psychotherapy:
Evidence-based expressive methods for mind, brain, and body.
Chicago, IL: Lyceum Books.
Lock, A., & Strong, T. (2010). Social constructionism: Sources and
stirrings in theory and practice. New York, NY: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Richardson, W. J. (2003). Heidegger through phenomenology to
thought (4th ed.). New York, NY: Fordham University Press.
Ross, S. T. (2002). Understanding propaganda: The epistemic merit
model and its application to art. Journal of Aesthetic Education,
36, 16–30.
Schwartz, L. H. (1980). Marxism and culture. Port Washington, NY:
Kennikat Press.
Sharp, J., Pollock, V., & Paddison, R. (2005). Just art for a just city:
Public art and social inclusion in urban regeneration. Urban
Studies, 42, 1001–1023.
Smith, C. (1999). The contribution of arts and sports to combating
social exclusion; A Speech by the Secretary of State for Culture,
Media and Sport as cited in Belfiore, E. (2002). Art as a means of
alleviating social exclusion: Does it really work? A critique of
instrumental cultural policies and social impact studies in the
UK. International journal of Cultural Policy, 8, 91–106.
Stankiewicz, M. A. (1989). Art at Hull-House: 1889–1901 Jane
Addams and Ellen Gates Starr. Woman’s Art Journal, 10, 35–39.
Taylor & Francis Foundation for Art and Healing. (2017). Retrieved
from http://artandhealing.org/our-history/
Walker, D. (2017). The art of democracy: Creative expression and
American greatness. Retrieved from http://www.fordfoundatio
n.org/library/speeches/the-art-of-democracy-creative-expression-
and-american-greatness
Walton, K. (1997). Review of art and the aesthetic. Philosophical
Review, 86, 97–101.
What We Do [Pamphlet]. (2017). National Endowment for the Huma-
nities. Retrieved from https://www.neh.gov/files/whatwedo.pdf
Wheelwright, V. (2000). A profession in the future? Discussion doc-
ument. Futures, 32, 913–918.