Drawing, its potential and its use have not yet exhausted psychological debate. Graphic activity\nhas long been seen as a supple tool for understanding intellection maturation and the individual’s\npersonality, thus contributing to the development both of intelligence tests and projective methods.\nNevertheless, despite the many attempts to identify precise diagnostic indicators, empirical research\nhas documented its lack of success in an extensive literature. In this connection, Boncori maintains\nthat graphic techniques, however much popularity they may now enjoy, cannot properly be termed\ntests.\nIn short, there appears to be no positive connection between the particular features of drawing\nand psychological characteristics. With their modest reliability, drawings seem to be an inadequate\nmeans of legitimizing individual evaluations: emotional, cognitive, developmental and pedagogical\nfactor all interfere too much for indicators to be validated.\nThis paper will demonstrate that drawing can be employed in a variety of ways and for a number\nof purposes, since – like any play activity – it has multiple functions.\nAnd like play, drawings have a sole source: the imagination, or the capacity for fantasy.\nAccordingly, what we are dealing with here is not a question of uncovering hidden meanings, but of\nassessing the creative ability that the child, through drawing, can deploy. The idea of ferreting out\nelements from the inner world must be replaced by the idea that drawing can help the child use play\nto process his relationship with the outer world. Reality, in fact, takes on meaning when it can be\nideally transferred into the realm of fantasy, and this takes place through the innate capacity that the\nhuman being has for self illusion, in the etymological sense of in-ludere, or “entering into play”.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 4 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.