GILLIAN ANDERSON - Rorschach - GILLIAN ANDERSON ART

External links
Biography from WhoNamedIt.com
The Hermann Rorschach Archives and Museum, organized by the International Rorschach Society and the publishing company Hans Huber Swiss Info bio
The following has been adapted from The Psychologist website and the Wikipedia: Rorschach inkblot test website.

Hermann Rorschach 8 November 1884 – 1 April 1922) was a Swiss Freudian psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, best known for developing a projective test known as the Rorschach inkblot test. This test was reportedly designed to reflect unconscious parts of the personality that "project" onto the stimuli. Individuals were shown 10 inkblots, one at a time, and asked to report what objects or figures they saw in each of them.

Rorschach was born in Zürich and spent his childhood and youth in Schaffhausen. He became known to his high school friends as Klecks, or "inkblot" since he enjoyed Klecksography, the making of inkblot "pictures." Rorschach would go on to make inkblots his life's work.
Like his father, an art teacher, Rorschach engaged in painting and drawing conventional pictures. When it was time for him to graduate from high school, he could not decide between a career in art and one in science. Rorschach enrolled in medical school at the University of Zurich. He graduated in medicine at Zurich in 1909 and at the same time became engaged to Olga Stempelin, his Russian sweetheart . They married and moved to Russia in 1913.
Rorschach studied under psychiatrist Eugen Bleuler, who had taught Carl Jung. At this time he was stll wondering why different people often saw very different things in the same inkblots, he began, while still a medical student, showing them to others and analysing their responses.
In 1914, Rorschach returned to Switzerland, where he worked as an assistant director in a psychiatric hospital at Herisau.5 and in 1921 he wrote his book Psychodiagnostik, which was to form the basis of the inkblot test.

Ink Blots

According to Exner (1993), the first publication of Hermann Rorschach's 10 inkblots was in 1921 as a monograph,Psychodiagnostik. For the 1940's and 1950's, the Rorschach was the test of choice in clinical psychology. It fell into disfavor as many clinicians began criticizing it as "subjective" and "projective" in nature. Ironically, this was never the intention of Rorschach. While working in a psychiatric hospital with adolescents, he noticed that certain children gave characteristically different answers to a popular game known as blotto (Klecksographie). In his original publication he characterized the blots as a "Form Interpretation Test, and cautioned that his findings were preliminary and stressed the importance of much more experimentation" (Exner, 1993, p. 6). Sadly, Rorschach died in 1922 at the age of 37. He had only invested just under four years in his inkblot test.

With no clear leader to take the helm, at least four separate "systems" developed to administer, score, and interpret the test. Needless to say, questions and concerns regarding the test's reliability and validity was eventually brought into question. Beginning in the late 1950's, enter John Exner. Exner (1993) reports that David Rapport, Bruno Klopfer, Marguerite Hertz, Zygmunt Piotrowski and Samuel Beck each played a roll in his desire to compile many systems into some sort of more cohesive whole. Exner's (1993) early work showed that each system "had considerable merit, but that each were also seriously flawed in one way or another" (p. viii). The result of addressing these concerns is the Comprehensive System. The "project" grew into a three volume work that has spanned at least three editions. Exner has almost single handedly rescued a drowning beast and breathed life back into it. The result is the resurrection of perhaps the single most powerful psychometric instrument ever envisioned.

The Test

The basic premise of the test is that objective meaning can be extracted from responses to blots of ink which are supposedly meaningless. Supporters of the Rorschach inkblot test believe that the subject's response to an ambiguous and meaningless stimulus can provide insight into their thought processes, but it is not clear how this occurs. Also, recent research shows that the blots are not entirely meaningless, and that a patient typically responds to meaningful as well as ambiguous aspects of the blots. Reber (1985) describes the blots as merely ".. the vehicle for the interaction .." between client and therapist, concluding: ".. the usefulness of the Rorschach will depend upon the sensitivity, empathy and insightfulness of the tester totally independently of the Rorschach itself. An intense dialogue about the wallpaper or the rug would do as well provided that both parties believe."

Ink Blot No.1

When seeing card I, subjects often inquire on how they should proceed, and questions on what they are allowed to do with the card (e.g. turning it) are not very significant. Being the first card, it can provide clues about how subjects tackle a new and stressful task. It is not, however, a card that is usually difficult for the subject to handle, having readily available popular responses.

Ink Blot No.2

The red details of card II are often seen as blood, and are the most distinctive features. Responses to them can provide indications about how a subject is likely to manage feelings of anger or physical harm. This card can induce a variety of sexual responses.

Ink Blot No.3

Card III is typically perceived to contain two humans involved in some interaction, and may provide information about how the subject relates with other people (specifically, response latency may reveal struggling social interactions).

Ink Blot No.4

Card IV is notable for its dark color and its shading (posing difficulties for depressed subjects), and is generally perceived as a big and sometimes threatening figure; compounded with the common impression of the subject being in an inferior position ("looking up") to it, this serves to elicit a sense of authority. The human or animal content seen in the card is almost invariably classified as male rather than female, and the qualities expressed by the subject may indicate attitudes toward men and authority. Because of this Card IV is often called "The Father Card".

Ink Blot No.5

Card V is an easily elaborated card that is not usually perceived as threatening, and typically instigates a "change of pace" in the test, after the previous more challenging cards. Containing few features that generate concerns or complicate the elaboration, it is the easiest blot to generate a good quality response about.

Ink Blot No.6

Texture is the dominant characteristic of card VI, which often elicits association related to interpersonal closeness; it is specifically a "sex card", its likely sexual percepts being reported more frequently than in any other card, even though other cards have a greater variety of commonly seen sexual contents.

Ink Blot No.7

Card VII can be associated with femininity (the human figures commonly seeing in it being described as women or children), and function as a "mother card", where difficulties in responding may be related to concerns with the female figures in the subject's life. The center detail is relatively often (though not popularly) identified as a vagina, which make this card also relate to feminine sexuality in particular.

Ink Blot No.8

People often express relief about card VIII, which lets them relax and respond effectively. Similar to card V, it represents a "change of pace"; however, the card introduces new elaboration difficulties, being complex and the first multi-colored card in the set. Therefore, people who find processing complex situations or emotional stimuli distressing or difficult may be uncomfortable with this card.

Ink Blot No.9

Characteristic of card IX is indistinct form and diffuse, muted chromatic features, creating a general vagueness. There is only one popular response, and it is the least frequent of all cards. Having difficulty with processing this card may indicate trouble dealing with unstructured data, but aside from this there are few particular "pulls" typical of this card.

Ink Blot No.10

Card X is structurally similar to card VIII, but its uncertainty and complexity are reminiscent of card IX: people who find it difficult to deal with many concurrent stimuli may not particularly like this otherwise pleasant card. Being the last card, it may provide an opportunity for the subject to "sign out" by indicating what they feel their situation is like, or what they desire to know.