Open Studio Art Therapy

Art as therapy and the early teachers

A history chapter by Maxine Borowsky Junge describes two theoretical poles in United States art therapy, both drawing on Freudian ideas. Margaret Naumburg, who in 1940 defined art therapy as a distinct discipline, used art mainly as symbolic speech within psychotherapy. Edith Kramer, whose book Art Therapy in a Children's Community appeared in 1958, held that the creative process and product are themselves therapeutic, and argued that art therapists are not psychotherapists and should not aim to be.

Junge also describes Florence Cane as an artist and art educator, the older sister of Naumburg, who taught at the Walden School in New York City and developed methods to free children's creativity that included movement and sound. Junge counts Cane among the art educators who influenced the development of art therapy, and names Freud and Jung as the field's primary intellectual ancestors, with Jung treating the image itself as central.

Studios in psychiatric hospitals

A 2020 scoping review by Finkel and Bat Or traces the open studio approach to artists working in psychiatric hospitals in the 1940s, influenced by humanistic psychiatry. It reports that Edward Adamson began as an art master at Netherne Psychiatric Hospital in London in 1946, at the request of the physician E. Cunningham Dax, and that Mary Huntoon began work in 1946 at a hospital in Topeka, Kansas, receiving a grant in 1947 to study the studio as a laboratory for observation.

Junge frames the same figures somewhat differently. She says Adamson was hired in 1946 to research the effects of lobotomy, and that Huntoon was never a psychotherapist and functioned as a recreational therapist, at first called an art instructor. The sources agree on the dates and settings but describe the roles of these early studio workers in different terms.

Allen and the Open Studio Process

According to the scoping review, Pat Allen coined the term open studio in 1983 for a group model she ran in a short-term psychiatric unit, and described the open studio process in 1995. The review also cites Allen's 1992 account of a trend toward adopting clinical psychology frameworks so that art therapy could gain professional recognition, and presents the contemporary open studio as part of a renewed emphasis on art as the core of the therapeutic work. Most of the literature it found dates from the 1990s onward.

What open studio means

The scoping review identifies four shared principles across open studio publications: the central role of art in the therapeutic process, the studio as an enabling space, individual expression within a group or community, and the facilitator's role in enabling the creative process. In this literature, openness refers to free choice of materials, an open invitation to attend and, in some community models, no screening or intake. Facilitators in these models do not direct or moderate the artmaking, and sessions are often longer than typical clinical sessions.

The review notes many variants and related labels, including studio group, open studio process, community-based art studio and therapeutic studio, and states that practice varies by setting and by the therapeutic approach of the facilitator. The term is therefore a family of models, not a single standardized protocol.

How it differs from other group formats

The scoping review contrasts the open studio with approaches that use art mainly as material to be interpreted through theories borrowed from other disciplines, and reports that Adamson's role was seen as fitting neither occupational therapy nor art teaching. Group art therapy trials such as the large United Kingdom trial described below offered a range of art materials and encouraged free self-expression, but they were not described by their authors as open studio groups, so findings from them should not be read as findings about the open studio model.

Professional bodies also separate art therapy from art activity. The American Art Therapy Association says coloring books may be used for recreation and self-care but must not be presented as art therapy services, and says that workshops by non-art therapists can mislead attendees into thinking they can practice art therapy. The British Association of Art Therapists describes art therapy as delivered by trained art therapists, also called art psychotherapists.

The studio and the therapist's role

In descriptions of the model, participants make art in a shared space with a range of materials and the art therapist is present to support the process. The scoping review reports that the facilitator may hold the space and witness without making art, may make art alongside participants, or may act as a partner of equal status. A pilot study in a radiation oncology setting describes three trained art therapists who gave no directive, were available to demonstrate media or guide the process on request, and ended the session with conversation about the artwork and the artmaking.

Settings and adaptations

Published reports describe open studio groups in psychiatric units, a therapeutic day school for adolescents, a foster-care village for children, oncology units and, in a 2026 study, a weekly group for displaced older women. One adaptation for teens recovering from mental health conditions lists supported autonomy, the absence of participatory demands, emphasis on process over product, protection and privacy of the creations, and the witnessing presence of therapists as key elements. These are the authors' descriptions of their own programs, not a standard definition.

What practitioners and researchers propose

Authors of open studio studies describe the model as a space for free creation that supports expression, relationships and a sense of agency. In a qualitative study of five at-risk children in a foster-care village, the authors identified themes of engaging in relationships, movement from basic to controlled art expressions, and experiences of change. In the case study of adolescents, the authors reported positive changes in identity development over 10 months. In the study of seven displaced older women, interviews described the studio as a restorative space of agency.

Proposals in oncology settings

The authors of an oncology pilot suggest that patients could benefit from studio spaces with art therapists and a choice of materials on the oncology unit. These are proposals from small studies, and the research section below sets out their limits.

Open studio research specifically

The 2020 scoping review identified 645 publications and included 102: 37 percent case studies, 35 percent theoretical articles and 25 percent studies. It reports that most research is qualitative or mixed-method, with small samples, short time frames and no control groups, and that few studies address children, youth or older adults. It searched English and Hebrew only and could not obtain 14 relevant publications. It maps the literature and does not estimate effects.

A mixed-methods pilot in radiation oncology compared a 45-minute open studio session with independent coloring. Twenty-two people enrolled and 15 completed both sessions. Both conditions were followed by improvements in positive affect, self-efficacy, creative agency, negative affect, perceived stress and anxiety, with no significant difference between them, and salivary cortisol and interleukin-6 showed no significant change. The authors note the small sample, the lack of a no-art control and short-term self-report measures.

Art therapy trials in schizophrenia

A Cochrane review by Ruddy and Milnes (2005) found only two randomized trials, 137 participants in total, comparing art therapy plus standard care with standard care alone. One mental state measure showed a small difference favoring art therapy, while social functioning and quality of life showed no clear effect. The authors concluded that randomized studies are possible in this field and that the benefits or harms of art therapy for serious mental illness remain unclear.

The later MATISSE trial randomized 417 people with schizophrenia at 15 United Kingdom sites to 12 months of weekly group art therapy, activity groups or standard care. Primary outcomes at 24 months, global functioning and symptoms, did not differ between art therapy and standard care, and the authors concluded that referral did not improve global functioning or mental health. A report of the same trial states that 61 percent of those assigned to art therapy attended at least one group. Searches run for this page did not retrieve a Thyme trial in schizophrenia, and the Thyme trials retrieved concern breast cancer.

Broader art therapy evidence

Thyme and colleagues randomized 41 women receiving radiotherapy for breast cancer to five sessions of individual art therapy or a control group. At a four-month follow-up the art therapy group reported lower depression, anxiety and somatic symptoms on self-rating scales, and a 2022 five-year follow-up reported continued differences on some self-image measures but none on a general symptom checklist. These were individual sessions, not open studio groups, and only abstracts were reviewed.

A 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials of visual art therapy for depression pooled 19 studies with 997 patients and reported a standardized mean difference of 0.53 favoring art therapy. The review pooled many formats of art therapy, so its result is not evidence about the open studio model.

Group dynamics and emotional material

The sources reviewed contain no systematic data on harms from open studio groups. The Cochrane review reports no adverse event data and states that benefits or harms remain unclear. In the oncology pilot, some participants felt anxious or uneasy at first when making art freely, typically resolving during the session, and seven participants dropped out before the second session citing reasons that included symptom exacerbation, moving or ending treatment; the report does not attribute these to the studio.

The 2026 study of displaced older women concluded that trauma-informed facilitation is needed to contain vulnerability and emotional activation, and described relational tensions in the group as one of its themes. The scoping review also raises the need to protect confidentiality and notes that exhibiting artwork may shift attention to aesthetic quality and could affect the authenticity of the process.

Suitability and the care boundary

Open studio art therapy is described as an adjunct and does not replace assessment or treatment by mental health professionals. The largest trial in schizophrenia found no added benefit from group art therapy over standard care, and the authors of the Cochrane review state that the evidence is too limited to establish benefit or harm. Anyone in crisis, or whose symptoms are worsening, should seek care from a qualified clinician or emergency services, not rely on a studio group.

Training and registration

The American Art Therapy Association states that art therapists hold a master's degree or higher in art therapy or a related field with supervised training, and that credentials can be verified through the Art Therapy Credentials Board. The British Association of Art Therapists states that art therapy is delivered by trained art therapists, also called art psychotherapists, who are registered with the Health and Care Professions Council. Neither page, as reviewed, sets out a separate qualification for leading open studio groups; people considering a group can check these registers for the facilitator's credentials.