Readings Response: Leclerc & Furth

I feel like both of these authors do art therapy a disservice in the presentation of vignettes. I'm not sure if it's the manner of the presentation or the content of what they are sharing, but it really gives the feeling of art therapy as magic. For example, Leclerc shares the story of a watery water color created by a client. Something about the art is striking to the clinician who comments that it looks like the view from a train on a rainy day. And what do you know, the client had a great sad experience as a child that involved a train! What a coincidence... And from such a subjective comment, yes? This bothers me - if the counter-transference, the experience of the clinician in response to the art and the client - is driving the clinicians comments, won't it necessarily be subjective and perhaps leading for the client? The idea of the art, and the process of its creation, as one more piece of the puzzle that is the client makes sense to me, but I'm not sure how to integrate in these case examples and the theories they are illustrating - they seem to be in contradiction to what we are discussing in class and what my gut tells me.