In 1993, I tried to introduce a new concept—“le travail du negatif” [the work of the negative]—in a book I published at the time (Green, 1993). In the introductory chapter of that book, I declare that one of the sources that guided me in my elaboration was Winnicott, to whom I was indebted. I mentioned specifically Playing and Reality (1971b), the twenty-fifth anniversary of which we are celebrating at this conference. This is the point I am going to illustrate in this lecture, in showing how he inspired me.
If a possible relationship between Winnicott’s ideas and mine can be found, this has not been recognized yet. The first time I mentioned the unnoticed importance of the negative in Winnicott’s work was during the discussion of a Conference of English-Speaking Members of European Societies in London in October 1976. Masud Khan, the unquestionable expert on Winnicott, replied publicly that I had misquoted Winnicott and that he never said or wrote anything of the sort. Those who knew Khan will not be surprised by such a radical but unfortunately wrong statement. The idea is still so surprising that if you turn to two recent dictionaries on Winnicott’s work, written by Alexander Newman (1995) and Jan Abram (1996), there is no trace of the negative. So the question arises: “Is it an invention of Andre Green?”
In their definition of supervision, all systemic therapists would include its interactional aspect. The development of supervision and/or training presupposes the creation of a co-evolving system between supervisors/trainers and supervisees/trainees (Campbell, Draper, & Huffington, 1988). Since the theoretical underpinning of family therapy supervision has been criticized as inadequate (Everett & Koerpel, 1986), some classificatory remarks on the supervision process, in general, could be adopted. Hawkins and Shohet (1989), for instance, have divided all supervisory activities into the therapy system (content, strategies, and therapeutic relationship) and the supervisory system (the therapist’s “transference”, the supervisor’s “countertransference”, and the here-and-now issues between them). It is stressed that patterns pertaining to these two systems are isomorphic (Haley, 1976; Liddle & Schwartz, 1983).
Apart from the conceptual framework of systemic supervision, its implementation embraces various methods and techniques that, to a great extent, depend on: (1) the theoretical orientation of the supervisors and (2) the context in which supervision is delivered. The term “supervision” is often used with different meanings, and for describing different activities in the systemic field. Supervision may denote, for instance, an external consultation to a depleted therapist (White, 1997), where the therapist uses the outsider to externalize his or her inner process (Rober, 1999); or, it may be addressed to a team of professionals/therapists who find themselves in uncertainty or in stressful situations (Shamai, 1998). In addition, supervision can be perceived as embedded in the framework of training (Boscolo, Cecchin, Hoffman, & Perm, 1987; De Bernart & Dobrowolski, 1996).
The Web has been around for more than 20 years now, experiencing euphoric early expansion, an economic-driven bust, an innovation-driven rebirth, and constant evolution along the way. One thing is certain: the Web as a communication and commercial medium is here to stay. Not only that, it has found its way onto devices such as smartphones, tablets, TVs, and more. There have never been more opportunities to put web design know-how to use.
Through my experience teaching web design courses and workshops, I’ve had the opportunity to meet people of all backgrounds who are interested in learning how to build web pages. Allow me to introduce you to just a few:
“I’ve been a print designer for 17 years, and now I am feeling pressure to provide web design services.”
“I work as a secretary in a small office. My boss has asked me to put together a small internal website to share company information among employees.”
Until 1877, Cézanne frequently painted in Auvers and in nearby Pontoise. The influence of Camille Pissarro and the
Impressionists was to some degree responsible for landscape acquiring an increasingly important role in his work. Painting side by side with Pissarro, Cézanne quite often chose the very same motif as his friend. Thus, Road at Pontoise depicts the same scene as Pissarro’s View of the Hermitage at Pontoise (1875), and was possibly conceived under Pissarro’s influence (this, at any rate, is the opinion of Bernard Dorival).
Cézanne’s views of the hermitage in Pontoise are close in motif to the Moscow canvas. The latter can with certainty be dated to 1875–1877. However, in the catalogue of the Museum of Modern Western Art in Moscow, it was dated 1876. Nina
Yavorskaya holds the same view, Rewald considers it to have been done in 1873, Dorival and Venturi date it to 1875–1877,