Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Blurring the Aesthetic and the Visual.
After reading this round of posts so far, I think I agree with Vernacular as the common, everyday, etc. and Aesthetic as a means of visual pleasure. But like Josh, I'm not sure if these distinctions are worthwhile, as the lines between aesthetic and vernacular are blending. As Helmers notes, it is in places like the mall bookstore and poster shops where “the initial idea of an object as 'fine art' is apprehended” (77). In this regard, the “aesthetic” has found its way into vernacular usage; I think the same could be said about Rockwell's civil rights paintings. They were meant as epideictic pieces at the time of composition, but can now be seen as artifacts of our cultural memory, examples of a victorious struggle for civil rights, a point of pride in America which often receives a cultural, self-congratulatory pat on the back. The inclusion of aesthetic artifacts into cultural memory makes them vernacular.
Now, how do we find the vernacular in the aesthetic? Warhol's paintings of “vernacular objects” is a good place to start, as Bruce pointed out. But I don't really regard Warhol's work as strictly aesthetic. He was a pop artist; let's not forget that pop is short for popular, or vernacular. He incorporated vernacular into aesthetics, yes, but in a fairly common (and possibly short-sighted, I'm not an art critic) reading of Warhol, he was attempting to push the boundaries of art, seeing what he could get away with. I think Warhol's aesthetic was in service to a purpose, putting it in the realm of the vernacular.
With the blurring of the aesthetic and vernacular, I think its becoming more and more difficult to distinguish between the two in our practices of looking. Every arm-chair art critic tries to decipher a formalistic meaning and purpose out of aesthetic works, whether there is one or not. We try to impose a vernacular meaning on the visuals we encounter. This search for meaning in visual artifacts effects visual rhetoric in that from our immersion in a visual culture, we assume that there is a purpose to all artifacts to be deciphered. In other words, all visuals are trying to “sell” us something and we have to discern what we are being sold if the “product” isn't made explicitly clear.
After composing this post, I realized I probably need to say something about the importance of context. I'm in agreement that all of rhetoric, not just the visual, is dependent on it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Travis, I think (at least to an extent) that you are right in assessing that the vernacular and aesthetic are blending together in our time- for example, the focus of not only the function of our electronic devices, but the color, the design, the "look" of them as well. Does this necessarily mean, though, that the aesthetic is vernacular and vice versa, all the time? Are there cases where there is a clear speration or is the line always fuzzy?
ReplyDeleteTravis, I really like your discussion of the blurring of the aesthetic and the vernacular, especially your mentioning of Warhol. I think he's one of the best examples of the blurring, and is, in many ways, one of the instigators of the blurring.
ReplyDeleteHe took popular things that weren't considered "sophisticated" and made people want them. Nixon, a Banana, Campbell's soup, etc. These were things that are not considered art, and yet, they now hang in museums and fetch a pretty penny at auction (when I say at auction, I like to imagine that I'm on Antiques Roadshow).
I also like that today, Warhol may once again blow up the art market. Last month, the Warhol foundation announced that they were going to sell off their inventory of 20,000 pieces of art by Warhol. His collectors, who have spent a large amount of money, at auction, or wherever, are going crazy, because they're worried this is going to devalue their investment, and make Warhol's art worthless. Although I'm not too familiar with art and art history, it seems like this is something that Warhol would want. His art came from the margins and became iconic, and, as a consequence, expensive. Now, his art is some of the most famous in the world, but the foundation could possibly devalue his work. Awesome!