This paper is concerned primarily with the use of art by three major groups the family. persons dwelling in the same setting such as patients on a psychiatric ward, and those who are banded together for a common purpose, such as a psychotherapy group. The art form to be considered is that of group murals. The focus will be primarily upon the formal principles of group art function and analysis as seen by an interested outsider. I have been impressed, to say the least, by the remarkable results achieved through group murals. on the wards of Jacobi Hospital and the Bronx Psychiatric Center, in family therapy sessions conducted with my wife (who is an occupational and art therapist). and as reported in the literature (e.g., Harris & Joseph, 1973). It is evident that through the mural the group expresses a range and depth of symbols, feelings. attitudes, and thoughts which are otherwise rare in group therapy. My perception of these murals has been infhrenced by psychological test evaluation and graphic tests in particular. I am against the psychologizing of art productions. using “psychologizing” in Frankl’s (19.55) sense of “exposing” the personality dynamics and weaknesses behind these productions. That is a violation of aesthetic rights, It is true, nevertheless. that many valid psychological insights are communicated through art or by test procedures based upon art-like productions. The works of Machover (1949). Hammer (1958). and Buck (1948) on Human Figure Drawings. The House-Tree-Person test. and other graphic procedures; Altschuler and Hatwick ( 1947) and Birren ( 1973) for their presentations of the relationship between color preferences and personality are outstanding examples. For the broader theoretical context, the psychoanalysts have been a seminal influence, especially Freud’s Interpretation of dreams (1958) and Kris’s ~.vc~oun~~vtic explorations in art (1952), Kris formulated the concept of “regression in the service of the ego.“ The implication here is that the energies and logic of the unconscious or the primary process are utilized, but in harmony with the ego and the rest of the personality, and as an expression of creativity rather than pathology. In the primary process thinking of the psychotic, on the other hand, the regressive forms of thought have taken over. The contrasting features might be seen in a comparison of a Picasso portrait with that of a confused schizophrenic. In both there might be distortions of form and perspective. Picasso, however. did so for a conscious artistic intent, and he did so deliberately. The psychotic could not do otherwise, insofar as he was psychotic. Both, however, utilized the primary process forms of thinking and communication. The value of both individual and group art productions in therapy is that the primary process forms of thought and perception can be expressed in a way and in a setting that is relatively safe and protected, and where the constructive forces of the ego can eventually take over. Other major contributions were made by Heinz Werner (1948), who brought the insights of gestalt psychology to bear on art and human relationships: