Análisis de proteómica del espermatozoide

Moon (2007) argues that within an art psychotherapy context the interpretation of the metaphorical potential of the image is a sensitive issue that requires

collaboration with the maker 19. Rather than the metaphor being interpreted as implicit in the therapeutic process, Enckell (2001, p.250) states that ‘in the reconstruction of the psyche…[the metaphor requires] clarification…’ [insertion mine]. This is a key debate in psychoanalytic literature on metaphor formation, about the degree to which the therapist and patient develop the metaphor together. In contrast, Bollas (1980) suggests that the metaphor is structured according to the imagined real other as part of a verbal reconstructive process. Bollas describes ‘How…the enigmatic message of this discourse is spoken to some absent other – implicit in the logic of the

metaphor…’ (Bollas, 1980, p. 136). Bollas argues that we do not know the meaning of the creative metaphor until it is spoken, and that the spoken metaphor is a

communication of a private experience involving another in the process, structuring the metaphor through verbal reflection. As the anthropologist Sandor (1986, p. 103) put simply,

“Metaphors need reflected consciousness in order to emerge; there is no such thing as an unconscious metaphor. Accordingly, we should not interpret predications metaphorically unless we have good reason to assume that they were meant that way.”

19 _{In her article ‘Lost in Translation’ Rothwell (2008) articulates the problem of assuming that}

the patient is speaking metaphorically through image making, when in fact the patient may be experiencing a far more literal meaning.

Sandor states this on the grounds that by definition, the articulation of a metaphor denotes the conscious capability to compare dissimilarities in order to communicate an experience.

In art psychotherapy there are methods of facilitating a shared understanding of the metaphorical value of the image. For example, the art psychotherapist

Maclagan (1994) suggests that aesthetic enquiry can take three forms: Firstly, ‘attentive description’ where the art therapist considers what is presented visually in terms of composition, colour and depth as well as attunement to the content through transference and counter-transference. Secondly ‘systematic categorisation’ which depends upon observed aesthetic similarities, for example, colour and form. Lastly Maclagan describes ‘a more inventive or poetic way of elaborating on the aesthetics of a picture. This is not so much a matter of scrupulously faithful description as of associative or metaphoric play’ [italics mine] (1994, p. 51). Maclagan describes a process of linking the source and target domains which represent general clinical methods used in art psychotherapy (Case & Dalley, 2013; Edwards, 2004; Waller, 1992).

Whilst images are ambiguous, not all images present the possibility of being interpreted as metaphorical. This appears to be largely dependent upon the emotional significance. For example, experimental research by Paivio (1986) suggests that emotionally evocative images are more amenable to metaphor formation than non- emotive images. Further to this, Paivio said that using emotive images increased metaphor formulation, comprehension and that this was linked with episodic memory

retrieval. In other words, according to Paivio’s experiments, if there is an emotionally evocative visual image, the meaning of the metaphor and accessing relevant

autobiographical memories inform the meaning occurs more readily.

Nevertheless, metaphors do not have to be formed from a visual image. It is possible to do this with non-image based words, however, where an image can be used as a source domain, Walsh (1988) concludes that it is more likely to stimulate the formation of creative metaphors than non-image based words. The image as tool for metaphoric associations was also explored in Arnheim’s (1969) experiments. Arnheim found that when a participant compared discordant images or contradictory elements within a single picture, the participant used metaphors to establish a new connotation, offering a meaningful abstraction of the commonality between the images. Fabregat (2004, p. 128 ) suggests that a pattern of interpreting the image is based on the primacy of affective experience provided through sensory cues which gives a novel cognitive meaning.

Although the meaning of the intended metaphoric communication is difficult to accurately convey through visual images, Refaie (2015) points to ways of

identifying visual cues that begin to limit the possibilities of what is being

communicated, that he calls ‘perceptual echoes’. The many associations that can be interpreted in images require some methods of being limited to the source and target domain, with clear points to a commonality. Refaie (2015) described a method of limiting associations using image making where contrasting elements of an image or images are compared to develop a novel meaning (Refaie, 2003; Refaie, 2015) where

‘…metaphorical meaning emerges from what might be termed a “perceptual echo”’ (Refaie, 2013, p.71), and where ‘one entity is depicted in a way that strongly calls to mind a different one.’ (Refaie, 2013, p.71)

However Refaie makes reference almost entirely to advertising and cartoons where there is a deliberate attempt to minimise the associations and focus the

attention of the reader. Contrasting with Refaie’s studies on visual metaphors, Moon (2007) suggests that the visual image spontaneously made in art psychotherapy, is not usually produced to provide a clear metaphoric focus and that this emerges in the course of the therapy, through co-elaboration and the development of narrative. Therefore, although there have been studies defining a ‘visual metaphor’(Forceville, 1996, 2002; Refaie, 2015), this is not applicable to the art psychotherapy context. The studies by Refaie refer to consciously constructed metaphoric communications than can be easily exchanged with words rather than ambiguous forms of visual images that occur in the clinical setting. The question is whether a metaphor can be inferred from only the image. The function of the image as source domain for metaphor formation has been debated by Kennedy (2008, 1982) in terms of the image function to aid communication, and concludes that unless there is a conscious or preconscious message, the image itself is ambiguous and can easily lead to misinterpretation through overvaluation of the image (Paivio, 1986). To conclude, it can be seen that making sense of the aesthetic properties and the process of image making is pertinent to the problem of co-elaborating the intended meaning of the metaphor.