Key Takeaways
What this piece is about
A request for psychological profiling from one artwork can feel urgent, but it cannot be done in a truly forensic way from a single drawing alone.
Five plausible readings, with rough odds
- A mind in motion, thinking or dreaming: 30%
- A split between warmth and coolness, like mixed feelings: 25%
- The self surrounded by nature and growth: 20%
- A stylized self-portrait or remembered person: 15%
- Pure design, made to feel good rather than “mean” one thing: 10%
The clean line between art talk and forensic work
Art interpretation can be thoughtful and useful. A forensic psychological profile needs much more evidence than one creative piece. Professional guidelines underline that point. [1] [2]
Story & Details
The drawing that invited a story
The artwork shows a face in profile, drawn with a light outline. Inside the head, spiral shapes turn like weather. Around it, loose flowers and vines move across warm reds and cool blues. The whole scene feels like thoughts made visible.
It is easy to see why meaning is tempting here. The drawing looks like it is about a person. It also looks like it is about what that person carries inside.
Why five meanings can all be true at once
Abstract art often works by leaving space. That space is not a flaw. It is the point. The same spiral can be “calm,” “stress,” “memory,” or simply “motion,” depending on the viewer.
That is why the odds above are not a verdict. They are a way to stay honest: one drawing can support several stories, and none can be proven without context.
When the ask turns into a demand for a “profile”
At some point, many people stop wanting interpretation and start wanting certainty. The request becomes: name the maker’s personality, fears, history, or intent, as if the artwork were a fingerprint.
That is where the line must be drawn.
In forensic psychology, opinions are expected to rest on more than one source. The work often involves records, structured methods, and careful limits on what can be claimed. That stance is reflected in professional guidance for forensic practice. [1] [2] It also matches what research has found about the uneven quality of tools used in legal settings, and why reliability and validity matter so much when the stakes are real. [3] [4]
A single drawing is not enough. It is not a test. It is not an interview. It is not a life history. It is a creative artifact.
A short Dutch mini-lesson for the same questions
Dutch is spoken in the Netherlands (Europe) and Belgium (Europe). The same basic questions can be asked in Dutch in a simple, polite way.
First, the full idea in plain English: the sentence below is used to ask what something might be, without sounding harsh.
Wat zou het kunnen zijn?
Now a word-by-word map, with small notes:
Wat — what
zou — would, a soft “maybe” feeling
het — it
kunnen — can, be able to
zijn — be
A second sentence, used to ask for a profile:
Kun je een psychologisch profiel maken?
Word-by-word map:
Kun — can
je — you
een — a
psychologisch — psychological
profiel — profile
maken — make
Why “I do not understand anything” can happen
When answers swing between poetic and technical, confusion can land fast. Clear language helps.
A simple rule keeps the ground steady: talk about what is visible in the artwork, and treat claims about the artist as unproven unless real evidence is present.
Conclusions
A better kind of certainty
The drawing can be read in many ways, and that is not weakness. It is how this kind of art communicates.
A forensic psychological profile cannot be responsibly built from one artwork, and the research culture around forensic assessment shows why: strong claims need tools that are both reliable and valid, and they need enough information to reduce guesswork. [3] [4]
The practical takeaway is simple: keep art interpretation as interpretation, and keep forensic conclusions for situations where real evidence exists.
Selected References
Reading and standards
[1] https://ap-ls.org/resources/guidelines/
[2] https://aapl.org/docs/pdf/Forensic_Assessment.pdf
[3] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32065036/
[4] https://www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/psychological-assessment-in-legal-contexts-are-courts-keeping-junk-science-out-of-the-courtroom.html
[5] https://www.wired.com/story/a-new-study-challenges-the-reliability-of-court-psych-exams
[6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hceh38MP6Vc
Appendix
Definitions
Abstract art: Art that does not aim to show one clear, literal scene, and often leaves meaning open.
Bias: A leaning in judgment that can push an interpretation in one direction without strong proof.
Confidence: How sure a claim sounds; high confidence is not the same as strong evidence.
Forensic psychology: Psychology work tied to legal questions, where methods and limits matter because outcomes can affect rights and lives.
Interpretation: A reasoned reading of what something might mean, without claiming it is the only truth.
Projective test: A test that uses unclear prompts and relies on interpretation, which can raise concerns about subjectivity in high-stakes settings. [4]
Reliability: Whether a method gives consistent results across time or across different evaluators. [5]
Validity: Whether a method truly measures what it claims to measure. [5]
My Diary - Leonardo Cardillo 