Where do I start? I'm sorting these things out as I go: having read what's been said about the aesthetic and the vernacular so far, I'm ok with the view of the aesthetic originally espoused by Perry, through Helmers, through Logan, that the aesthetic "pleases." I like Erin's qualification of the individual/personal, though we could pretty easily complicate that (how did we develop our personal lenses? Who taught us to decide what was good?) I also like Elizabeth-through-Bruce's conception of the vernacular, but I keep banging my head against the last part "concerned with function." It seems to imply (as some have already noted) that the aesthetic is not concerned with function, or is significantly less concerned with function. I'm not sure that's a helpful distinction.
I'd like to bring up the idea of class privilege here. Being a bit of an etymology geek, I looked up the word vernacular: it comes from the Latin vernaculus, which means "domestic, native," which seems to proceed from the Etruscan word verna, which means "home-born slave, native." So it carries the idea not only of common use (I loved Aimee's example, by the way), but also of subservience to someone or something else. Aesthetic, by contrast, comes from a Greek root that has to do with sensitivity, and is linked to the root of the Greek term for audience. These are two very different metaphors. The vernacular, in language, is set against the proper, the accepted, the King's English. There is an implied or explicit element of schooling involved. The vernacular is seen as common, unschooled--and possibly subservient, in many cases, to the dominant discourse. I'm resisting the temptation to go into composition and belletrism here, so I'll shift gears.
And yes, I think context matters--we've discussed the class piece of the vernacular etymology, but there's also the "domestic, native, home-born" aspects. As Christine points out, we can become blind to the familiar, and I suppose that implies that one person's vernacular can be another person's aesthetic. Everyday objects taken out of context--made strange by various methods, even curating (see Helmers)--can be aesthetic. But I think they still have goals. The objects are just repurposed; they take on a different rhetorical function.
So can a piece be both aesthetic and vernacular? I think it can. Look at the re-appropriations of graffiti artists like Banksy by the artistic establishment. But I'm not sure that the deciding factor is what function, finally, the piece intends. Visual rhetoric, aesthetic or vernacular, always has a goal; it is always "concerned with function." The function might be to alert other gangs to stay out of a gang's turf with graffiti, or it might be to gain a showing at a gallery. It might be to mimic reality, to act as a "window frame" into a space, or to make reality strange.
Am I missing something here? Is there a way to see vernacular and aesthetic without positing a dualistic mind/matter or form/function split between the two?
Your last question is interesting...
ReplyDeleteWhat happens if/when the vernacular becomes aesthetic to a specific group due to its familiarity to that group? I'm thinking of Molly's post and her example of the students she taught back home, helping these students to use/appreciate their vernacular language. I imagine a vernacular text from back home might have aesthetic appeal to someone like Molly who is removed enough to appreciate the aesthetic but familiar enough to recognize/understand the vernacular.
I too, briefly, mentioned graffiti and street art (which I learned last semester at two very, very different things via a student's research paper). His central argument is that street art (he chose to avoid graffiti for it's "negative" connotations) is both aesthetic and rhetorical... which now looking back I would add he also saw the vernacular (without the use og the word) because it spoke of place and culture and such things. I think that is a good visual to see ways in which the vernacular and the aesthetic function outside of a dualistic position and more of a partnership or parallel? I definitely do not see the two working in a distinct binary...which as Christine mentioned could be situated in how I worked with vernacular with my students in the past. However, I'm wondering if the aesthetic I saw/see in vernacular texts (here I am thinking of more verbal texts) is contextual and situated in my "Appalachianness" that would not transfer to someone without that knowledge of place?
ReplyDeleteSo is the vernacular, then, an expression of a distinct culture--a particularity, over and against an ethos of universality? Does the vernacular just aspire to less? I guess when I think of the vernacular becoming the aesthetic, I'm thinking mainly of functional objects that become objects d'art. But my difficulty with the vernacular is not when it is used as a descriptor, but when it is used as a category. I agree, Molly--I don't necessarily think this is a hard binary. For instance, I'd tend to see aesthetic and banal as more diametrically opposed.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDavid, I really like the way you brought in the etymology here because subservient never came to my mind when thinking of vernacular. I guess a vernacular artifact can be subservient to its user. To answer your question above, I do think vernacular is very tied to culture because it has to do with the everyday, and one's everyday routines and tools are very different from the everyday of someone else's culture.
ReplyDelete