Peter Ehrenhaus is a professor of communication and writes very interesting things about silence and symbolic expression. He says that silence can be an object or an encounter. With an encounter meaning can arise in silence between the individual and the object experienced as silent.
He is not a psychologist and presents his ideas in terms of just symbolic communication. One can present his ideas in psychological terms. In silence a person is afforded the opportunity to let their unconscious come to the fore. To experience their unconscious, what it thinks and wants. Of course this is what people can do in their experience of art in an art gallery.
On perceiving the art one can then let their unconscious have its reaction to that. Indeed the unconscious will always have its reaction to it anyways. The hard part is learning how to listen to it and be aware of it. Indeed one could say the more a person can access that level of reaction they are having to the art then the more they are able to ‘appreciate’ what a particular painting means to them and for them.
Perhaps one could draw this transaction. No communication is coming from the ‘other’ so the transaction is drawn as coming from the person who recognises the ‘other’ but then back to self and what the other means for them at the unconscious level.
Of course in psychotherapy the ‘other’ is not a painting but a person, the therapist. In silence the client can do the same in the therapy room as he can in an art gallery.
My self at the hermitage in Saint Petersburg, Russia. How can I let my Free Child ego state (and the unconscious) run free in silence as I look at this. The first thing not to do, is think this and try to do it. How can I just ‘be’, without trying to ‘be’?
It took me a few reads to understand, particularly the first paragraph, but I think I am there now.
A couple of things popped into my mind ….
(1) I guess you are saying a transaction doesn’t have to be perceived by another for it to be a transaction (because an object can´t perceive!)
(2) How does the silence transaction differ by cultures? eg Asia v N. American. As I think silence is more common in one v the other. But also Asian cultures are more hierarchical I think with weight given to elders (and therefore more listening of elders)
(3) The sound of silence by Simon & Garfunkel
(4) The use of silence by religions. You have whole orders of nuns / monks whose majority of day is in silence. I guess this is meant so they converse with God, but really they are conversing with their subconscious. Buddhists are also known for their silence / meditation.
(5) Abstract Art … I never really got it I must admit for many years, even now I only kind of. Give me a traditional scene that I could see what was truly happening. I wondered why people raved about pictures which were spots of paint on canvas. I nearly got Jackson Pollock if there was a pretty pattern emerging. But I may try and do what you suggest. Go to the local art gallery and just look at some paintings and just ´be´ and see what my sub conscious says to me!
(6) I guess elite sportspeople will ´be´ when they are at the top of their game. To win that Olympic medal they cant let thinking crowd their mind, but rather need to silence everything to win that gold. With such fine margins, the mental game is key I guess.
Just popped out and put S&G on a few times …
“People talking without speaking
People hearing without listening
People writing songs that voices never share …”
So we have the silence transaction, the hearing transaction ? and art singing?
Nope. Rather a listening transaction than hearing as hearing is a derivative of ear! Oh and I guess writing sings too!