484 C Brassac and M.-C. Mietkiewicz On the clinical scale, a first observation could be about the spontaneous distribution that takes place between both children: each of them will draw its parent without raising any question amongst them. When Leo states'I'm drawing dad,, Emma will make no comment; nor will Leo react to Emma's assertion'mom, I'm going to draw her. Despite the fact that the instruction explicitly requested both childrento come to an agreement this non-negotiated task sharing can be translated as the consequence of the projective identification which leads most of the time, instruction permitting, the child to draw a ure sexually identical to its own Machover(1949), whose work has been confirmed by all the authors who since took an interest in this topic, established that, when it comes to drawing a human figure, the frequency of drawing one's sexually identical figure is significantly higher. Therefore, it is to no surprise that this brother and sister decide to draw the parental figures of their own gender before representing themselves. One can formulate the hypothesis that this question raises no debate due to the siblings mixed gender. Emma and Leo are respectively eight and six years old, ages at which the gender differentiation is of a modest expression, mainly with hair and clothing details(Greig, 2000). The parents'representations, which they suggest, are well in line with this apparent desexualisation, characteristic of the latency period. And so, Mo, although wearing pants, this by the way being questioned by Leo: ' you should 've put on a skirt, is a woman through her hairstyle animated with a sweeping movement, through the wearing of earrings and the presence of a handbag, a typical feminine accessory. As of Dad, he wears a sweater and pants, has short hair and wears glasses. The signifiers being used to differ entiate the sexes suggest that both children possess the graphic means in line with their chronological age to indicate the belonging to a gender( Perron Perron-Borelli, 1996) If each child can choose which figure of the parental couple to draw, it is neverthe- less not free to represent it as it wishes. The instruction requires a single drawing of the mutual family and insists on the need to reach an agreement, so as to compel each to take into account the others advice, orders and suggestions. The written reminder of the instruction, the presence of both experimenters and of the cameraman, are enough incite- ments to not derogate from this formal request. The way Emma and Leo behave shows that they are anxious not to let the other proceed to its own liking: they hardly ever draw at the same time and only rarely and briefly allow themselves autonomous and concomi- tant tracings. Concerning the parents' size, whether in width or in length, it is obvious that it divides both children, even if the figures' thickness does not lead to redrawing the traces. Leo's parents are more imposing than Emma's, the latter criticising him for a father too fat: hey, wait, not too fat you exaggerate here a little dad he is not that plump, whereas he considers very frail the mother drawn by his sister: "isnt she skinny mom. Beyond the worry, by the way clearly denied by Leo (but who cares.. )but displayed by Emma to convey the true corpulence of the figures, what is at stake between both children is far more the prestige of the parent which is not measurable by its real size but by the dimension of the symbolic space it takes up on the sheet. In other words. Leo's dad is taller than Emmas dad and emma's mom shows a smaller differ ence in size with her dad than Leos parents. To shorten a dad, to lengthen a mom is trying to reach a consensus whereas the projective identifications bring Leo to draw a tall Dad and Emma a Mom not much smaller than her spouse Discussion Filming produces observables that allow comprehension the childrens activity and not only the mere activitys result. More precisely, the analyst considering the drawing sees484 C. Brassac and M.-C. Mietkiewicz On the clinical scale, a first observation could be about the spontaneous distribution that takes place between both children: each of them will draw ‘its’ parent without raising any question amongst them. When Leo states ‘I’m drawing dad’, Emma will make no comment; nor will Leo react to Emma’s assertion ‘mom, I’m going to draw her’. Despite the fact that the instruction explicitly requested both children ‘to come to an agreement’, this non-negotiated task sharing can be translated as the consequence of the projective identification which leads most of the time, instruction permitting, the child to draw a figure sexually identical to its own. Machover (1949), whose work has been confirmed by all the authors who since took an interest in this topic, established that, when it comes to drawing a ‘human figure’, the frequency of drawing one’s sexually identical figure is significantly higher. Therefore, it is to no surprise that this brother and sister decide to draw the parental figures of their own gender before representing themselves. One can formulate the hypothesis that this question raises no debate due to the sibling’s mixed gender. Emma and Leo are respectively eight and six years old, ages at which the gender differentiation is of a modest expression, mainly with hair and clothing details (Greig, 2000). The parents’ representations, which they suggest, are well in line with this apparent desexualisation, characteristic of the latency period. And so, Mom, although wearing pants, this by the way being questioned by Leo: ‘you should’ve put on a skirt’, is a woman through her hairstyle animated with a sweeping movement, through the wearing of earrings and the presence of a handbag, a typical feminine accessory. As of Dad, he wears a sweater and pants, has short hair and wears glasses. The signifiers being used to differ￾entiate the sexes suggest that both children possess the graphic means in line with their chronological age to indicate the belonging to a gender (Perron & Perron-Borelli, 1996). If each child can choose which figure of the parental couple to draw, it is neverthe￾less not free to represent it as it wishes. The instruction requires a single drawing of the mutual family and insists on the need to reach an agreement, so as to compel each to take into account the other’s advice, orders and suggestions. The written reminder of the instruction, the presence of both experimenters and of the cameraman, are enough incite￾ments to not derogate from this formal request. The way Emma and Leo behave shows that they are anxious not to let the other proceed to its own liking: they hardly ever draw at the same time and only rarely and briefly allow themselves autonomous and concomi￾tant tracings. Concerning the parents’ size, whether in width or in length, it is obvious that it divides both children, even if the figures’ thickness does not lead to redrawing the traces. Leo’s parents are more imposing than Emma’s, the latter criticising him for a father too fat: ‘hey, wait, not too fat you exaggerate here a little dad he is not that plump’, whereas he considers very frail the mother drawn by his sister: ‘isn’t she skinny mom’. Beyond the worry, by the way clearly denied by Leo (‘but who cares …’) but displayed by Emma to convey the true corpulence of the figures, what is at stake between both children is far more the prestige of the parent which is not measurable by its real size but by the dimension of the symbolic space it takes up on the sheet. In other words, Leo’s dad is taller than Emma’s dad and Emma’s mom shows a smaller differ￾ence in size with her dad than Leo’s parents. To shorten a dad, to lengthen a mom is trying to reach a consensus whereas the projective identifications bring Leo to draw a tall Dad and Emma a Mom not much smaller than her spouse. Discussion Filming produces observables that allow comprehension the children’s activity and not only the mere activity’s result. More precisely, the analyst considering the drawing sees