Commentary: Broadening the gap or Narrowing the Vision?

The task given to this journal edition's contributors reminds me of Mara Selvini Palazzoli's invariant prescription: a standard intervention designed to show up difference (1989). The contrasting ways in which each author has approached this task are as revealing and fascinating as the theoretical and clinical insights they produce. The metaphor that comes to my mind is of a painting left hanging in a gallery for twenty years, which the artist is invited to return to, scrutinize and comment on. Some people gaze proudly and fondly at their creation, are maybe tempted just to touch it up a little with newer and brighter paints, but are otherwise well satisfied and especially gratified to see their style reflected in the surrounding paintings. Some give it a cursory glance, are quite tickled by the draughtsmanship but are much more interested in their latest creation. Others prefer to look at the painting as part of the overall portfolio and discuss their artistic development. Still others express surprise at how small the canvas was, how cramped the vision and how other artists have subsequently influenced their work. I am perhaps just a little disappointed, but hardly surprised, that not one has seized their painting from the wall, thrown it on the ground and trampled on it! To return to the medium in question, what accounts are these authors giving of themselves and their therapeutic development? Have these accounts changed over time? And, if so, how have they changed?