Vernacular v. Aesthetic

In my mind, thinking about aesthetic v. vernacular in terms of language makes it a little easier to visualize the relationship, and the difference, between the aesthetic and the vernacular in the visual. The aesthetic is akin to the classic Latin or High German, it is the written language, the "art" language, the upper class language; while the vernacular is akin to the vulgar Latin, the dialectical German, the "utility" language, the language of the people. In the same way, the aesthetic image is the one that is privileged, the one meant to be beautiful, the one in museums; while the vernacular image is the one that is everyday, the one meant to be utilitarian, the one on the billboard.

What's interesting though, is that the aesthetic and vernacular languages have, for the most part, remained the same (High German is still the aesthetic, and Plattdeutsch and Schwyzerdütsch are still the vernacular), but in images, the vernacular can sometimes transcend the boundary and become aesthetic. Andy Warhol's images of pop culture icons (as Travis points out, pop = popular among the people) pushed the boundaries and the vernacular image became high art. Folk Art, the art of the everyday people, is now housed in the Met, and is commanding high prices from collectors.

I think the influence of this on visual rhetoric is that we, as educated viewers (or viewers who are being educated), can look at vernacular images and see the possibility of the aesthetic, or we can look aesthetic images and see the traces of the vernacular.