The Aesthetic Vernacular

Like Logan and Bruce, I am satisfied with Elizabeth's definition of the vernacular -- "... the everyday, the unschooled, concerned with function." Likewise (and like Christine), I'm willing to accept Helmers' definition of the aesthetic as something that pleases, engages, and inspires. A few people have mentioned that the distinction between these influences is a little more blurred than the terms suggest. Bruce points to Warhol's use of vernacular subjects and the resulting movement that changed how we conceptualize art. I am interested in the reverse of that relationship -- the influence of aesthetic on the vernacular. Specifically, I think the effect of aesthetics on the design of functional commonplace items is fascinating. We've read about some of these ideas in portions of discussions dealing with typography and the inherent visuality of print. In addition to those discussions, there is a substantial body of work dealing with the design of devices and interfaces, and most of it is pretty compelling. I am relating those discussions, because they define points of overlap between subjects that have been treated as uniquely different from visual rhetoric. The Goggin reading offers a useful frame -- rhetorics are indicative of the modes of production at the time which dictate the semiotic resources and circulation available to the author.  I suggest that the marriage of the vernacular and aesthetic movements are indicative of how we frame and access works in the current web paradigm. 

Logan uses Sontag to point to how our notions of aesthetics shift over time and are susceptible to context (related to movements) and presentation (related to space and framing). In our paradigm, works are typically created and accessed within private spaces, because they are created, circulated, and presented through devices and interfaces. While Goggin uses the example of the "blockbuster" gallery exhibit to point to the importance of reception, I think that the devices and interfaces that we use to produce and access works effect how we perceive works more often than physical spaces. While we insist that interfaces be intuitive and transparent, we are very attentive to the material aspects of the devices that we use to access those interfaces. Both of these moves are highly rhetorical. Gary Huswit's movie Objectified discusses the importance of Apple for computers and how their attention to the aesthetics of the physical computer have redefined how we value devices. We value the invisibility of design problems, the eloquence of the materiality of the design solution (device), and the seamlessness by which the material solution interacts with the virtual space. Futhermore, we value the virtual space in a similar model. The interface works if it is invisible and does not obscure the content trying to be accessed. Apple is an argument for the way computing ought to be, and the culture has been persuaded. So, each Apple device brings a tone of praise for makers to embrace that ethic and blame for those who haven't. Likewise, blame is culturally scribed on each device that does not embrace the aesthetic of design. I think all of this is highly rhetorical. 

Design has become an aesthetic that has redefined how we view and interact with the vernacular. We are attentive to objects in a time where much of our artifacts are reduced to information stored on drives, accessible only through device. The influence of the aesthetic on the vernacular has drawn our attention to material objects in a time where we value immateriality (non-physical artifacts).  Our devices are frames. They are responses to the spaces in which we view works, because they are noteworthy and suggest praise and blame.

This is kind of a shorthand discussion for ideas that are swimming around upstairs. I am foregoing points about the rhetorical nature of interfaces and how they actually frame our interactions.