I must profess that the terms aesthetic and vernacular are quite perplexing to me: namely, when I try to think of various visual artifacts as examples, I sometimes have a hard time drawing distinctions between the two. Beyond this concern, I also have a hard time pinning down a definition of the two. Aesthetic, as I have always know it, is concerned with the beauty and carries more of a visually pleasing, emotional connotation. Vernacular, however, truly confuses me.
If any of you are so inclined as to google "vernacular in relation to visual rhetoric," you will find the 2010 version of this blog as one of the top listings. Reading over the discussion of our predecessors was most helpful in me coming to understand the vernacular. Elizabeth defined the vernacular as "... the everyday, the unschooled, concerned with function." Once I settled on this definition (which seems quite well done I might add), I began to see some distinctions. The aesthetic would seem to be more concerned with being pleasing to the eye; the vernacular is more set on accomplishing goals or purposes. Yet, given this distinction, I think it only complicates the matter rather than making it more clear.
Could a visual artifact be both aesthetic and vernacular? It seems probably to me. Furthermore, can a visual artifact that is either aesthetic, vernacular, or both be classified as visual rhetoric? This is where Helmer's article "Framing the Fine Arts Through Rhetoric" came in useful. Helmers contends that "Yet, because it is rhetoric and rhetoric is situational, a visual rhetoric cannot hope to be a unified theory" (65). What I took from this article is that the rhetorical aspect of visuals is oftentimes highly predicated upon context. Helmer's discussion of Winslow Homer's paintings really made this idea clear for me. She made a convincing argument as to how the paintings were being displayed in a particular gallery having an effect on the interpretations and the visual "work," so to speak, that the paintings were doing. I've oftentimes wondered about the relationship of the word to art (i.e. do certain paintings receive praise/criticism as a result of the words written about them) and also of how art is placed within a museum.
Using Helmers as a guide, I was able to contemplate two examples that have come up in class: Duchamp and Warhol. Both artists created work that I believe could either be classified as purely aesthetic or, contingent on context, both aesthetic and rhetorical. Duchamp's "Fountain" was merely a urinal with the signature R. Mutt, yet when he placed it in a Society of Independent Artists exhibit (New York 1917), it can be argued that it was functioning in a rhetorical manner of sorts. Duchamp was rebelling and/or attempting to subvert common notions of what we consider art. Regardless of whether it was effective or not (personally, I've never quite thought this piece was overly convincing), the placement of the work of art, and not the work of art itself, seems to add a rhetorical element to the work.
In regards to Warhol, I would imagine that much of his pop art would be similar in nature. Both his "10 Marilyn's" print and his "Brillo Boxes" sculpture can be viewed as merely aesthetic: they are both interesting visually, and I would argue quite beautiful. However, if they were placed in a particular exhibit commenting on popular culture, '60s culture, etc., they would quickly take on a rhetorical component in my estimation. Hence, the placement and context would be as important in a rhetorical analysis as the visual artifact itself.
When considering the vernacular, I actually thought of a recent bumper sticker I saw. While one could argue that bumper stickers are by nature rhetorical, this particular bumper sticker had quite an interesting context surrounding it. It was a Mitt Romney bumper sticker, as simple as can be; however, underneath of the bumper sticker was a white board with a hand-written diatribe about how Obama will harm women's rights by enacting Muslim laws. Even more intriguing, this display was on the back of a horse trailer, which would seem to be a rather vernacular placement. While the intention of this visual image is to persuade one to vote for Romney, the context in which it was placed had me contemplating conservative stereotypes and how the image, in the context it was placed, for me at least seemed to create an argument for cliché Republican rhetoric. I could easily imagine Jon Stewart having a field day with this.
In the end, I think this discussion of aesthetic and vernacular has left me with more questions than answer, yet the complications Helmers provided in regards to context have enriched my analysis. I'd like to know what everyone else thinks: How vital is context to analyzing a visual artifact?
Hi Bruce! You asked, “How vital is context to analyzing a visual artifact?” I used your question as a starting point for my own blog post, and so although I ended up not including my answers in my blog post, I figured I would share them with you.
ReplyDeleteI think if you’re analyzing a visual for its aesthetic impact, context of the visual is less important. To me, aesthetic impact is based on the spectator and the specific moment in which she looks at the visual. Her aesthetic interpretation (I like this…, This is interesting to me…, This bothers me…) is a personal value-judgment formed, of course, based upon her personal experiences and preferences. That is, the context surrounding the spectator will impact her aesthetic analysis, but not necessarily the context surrounding the visual’s creation. I think there are two contexts at work here, do you?
So, depending upon what the spectator knows about the visual artifact and the time in which it was created, the context of the visual may or may not have an impact upon the spectator’s aesthetic judgments. Still, as Logan points out, this focus solely on a spectator’s aesthetic analysis most likely leaves us with an incomplete understanding of the rhetorical impact of a visual.
On the other hand, if you’re analyzing an artifact for it’s vernacular significance, I think context is crucial. Vernacular is, how I’ve come to understand it, the everyday. This is maybe too simplistic, but for me, this also includes social interactions between people in regards to the visual and the social reception of a visual artifact within the context in which it was produced.
Hey Christine. I think your point about the aesthetic has merit; however, I wonder about the spectator's aesthetic judgments in relation to context. If an artifact were considered visual rhetoric by many, yet a certain spectator did not consider it rhetorical, merely aesthetic, since he/she did not know the original context of the work, is that a valid analysis? How much should we leave up to the individual viewer?
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, I guess if a majority of viewers do not know the context, then we could possibly argue that an artifact fails from a rhetorical standpoint. Hence, an artifact could be created as rhetorical, but, as a result of a failure in communication beyond the object, have no substantial rhetorical effect.