Dr. Joan Whitman Hoff
Philosophy professor at Lockhaven University
Philosophy professor at Lockhaven University
On Thursday, May 7th, philosophy professor Dr. Joan Whitman Hoff gave a lecture for the Bald Eagle Art League. As an audience member, I was excited to experience an academic lecture outside of the halls of academia. Kudos to Dr. Hoff for reaching out to a community art group. The lecture was loosely structured by what Dr. Hoff referred to as "the inexhaustibility of art." It isn't her theory and I don't remember who she said originated it, so, I can only discuss it in relation to how she presented it that night.
Dr. Hoff began by saying that her talk would go "all over the place" because she feels that art is all over the place and that's how philosophy should treat it. She said philosophy shouldn't try to pin it down. This, then, is partly why using the term "inexhaustible" makes sense. When something can go anywhere or is anywhere, there's no end to how we can talk about it. But her focus was mainly on how we can infinitely discover new things about a static work of art. Every time one sees a painting, one can see something different or relate to it in a different way.
This point immediately bothered me. "What's particular about art that makes it inexhaustible?" I thought. I could experience a space, just a general, public space, in infinitely different ways. Let's say that I went to NYC before 9/11 and then went after 9/11. Let's say I went to NYC before I was was an art major and after I was an art major. Let's say I went to NYC as a kid and then as an adult. Let's say I went to NYC and was in it for one second and then another. You get my point. Every time something with me (or with that place) has changed (which means practically any time), this makes for a different experience of that place. Since the variables of anything are always changing, anything is inexhaustible.
After her lecture, she asked if anyone had questions and I couldn't hold back. I raised my hand and asked, "What particularly about art makes it inexhaustible in contrast to anything else? I mean, I could experience this table in infinitely different ways." Her response was, "I think the difference is in the way we feel about it. We have a deeper connection to art than to common objects like a table." I smiled because of how wrong she was (And she did add, "That's the best I can do with that," acknowledging that there may be some philosophical problems with her position). We love when others are wrong and we think we're right. Well, at least I do. Here's my counterargument to her answer: family heirlooms. Regardless of the specificity of the object, it has gained value simply by being passed down from generation to generation. The fact that this object has been held by your great grandmother, your grandmother, your mother, and you, imbues it with profound meaning. You have a deep, inexhaustible connection with this object and it could be anything: a photo, a ring, a letter, a hat, a pocket knife, whatever. By being held through time, anything can create a deep relationship, the kind Dr. Hoff holds specifically for art.
I try to imagine what her response would be. Perhaps that the experience of art is different from the experience of a family heirloom, that art is a compositional gesture and this makes for a different relationship, one that turns on skill and form. But then my response would be: What specifically about artistic compositions makes them inexhaustible? Does the fact that something was made to be a, presumably useless, aesthetic object make it anymore inexhaustible? In fact, I might argue the opposite. If something has a use and is beautiful, doesn't that make it more inexhaustible than something that is beautiful without use? Isn't a house more inexhaustible than a painting because it provides infinite uses and infinite aesthetic pleasures?
Well, regardless of philosophical differences, I thoroughly enjoyed Dr. Hoff's lecture. She's very careful with her words, she's very familiar with several bodies of literature on aesthetics, and she makes great distinctions. Her discussion of art raised the bar for the Bald Eagle Art League lecture series.
Dr. Hoff began by saying that her talk would go "all over the place" because she feels that art is all over the place and that's how philosophy should treat it. She said philosophy shouldn't try to pin it down. This, then, is partly why using the term "inexhaustible" makes sense. When something can go anywhere or is anywhere, there's no end to how we can talk about it. But her focus was mainly on how we can infinitely discover new things about a static work of art. Every time one sees a painting, one can see something different or relate to it in a different way.
This point immediately bothered me. "What's particular about art that makes it inexhaustible?" I thought. I could experience a space, just a general, public space, in infinitely different ways. Let's say that I went to NYC before 9/11 and then went after 9/11. Let's say I went to NYC before I was was an art major and after I was an art major. Let's say I went to NYC as a kid and then as an adult. Let's say I went to NYC and was in it for one second and then another. You get my point. Every time something with me (or with that place) has changed (which means practically any time), this makes for a different experience of that place. Since the variables of anything are always changing, anything is inexhaustible.
After her lecture, she asked if anyone had questions and I couldn't hold back. I raised my hand and asked, "What particularly about art makes it inexhaustible in contrast to anything else? I mean, I could experience this table in infinitely different ways." Her response was, "I think the difference is in the way we feel about it. We have a deeper connection to art than to common objects like a table." I smiled because of how wrong she was (And she did add, "That's the best I can do with that," acknowledging that there may be some philosophical problems with her position). We love when others are wrong and we think we're right. Well, at least I do. Here's my counterargument to her answer: family heirlooms. Regardless of the specificity of the object, it has gained value simply by being passed down from generation to generation. The fact that this object has been held by your great grandmother, your grandmother, your mother, and you, imbues it with profound meaning. You have a deep, inexhaustible connection with this object and it could be anything: a photo, a ring, a letter, a hat, a pocket knife, whatever. By being held through time, anything can create a deep relationship, the kind Dr. Hoff holds specifically for art.
I try to imagine what her response would be. Perhaps that the experience of art is different from the experience of a family heirloom, that art is a compositional gesture and this makes for a different relationship, one that turns on skill and form. But then my response would be: What specifically about artistic compositions makes them inexhaustible? Does the fact that something was made to be a, presumably useless, aesthetic object make it anymore inexhaustible? In fact, I might argue the opposite. If something has a use and is beautiful, doesn't that make it more inexhaustible than something that is beautiful without use? Isn't a house more inexhaustible than a painting because it provides infinite uses and infinite aesthetic pleasures?
Well, regardless of philosophical differences, I thoroughly enjoyed Dr. Hoff's lecture. She's very careful with her words, she's very familiar with several bodies of literature on aesthetics, and she makes great distinctions. Her discussion of art raised the bar for the Bald Eagle Art League lecture series.
