So I just went through some of the blogposts that have just been posted and to be completely honest, I haven't a clue where to start now. From what I've gathered from my own perspective and that of what has been posted, I've come to know aesthetic and vernacular as this:
VERNACULAR: the definition that keeps being thrown around is "everyday" "unschooled" and "concerned with function". I'm willing to accept it; however, I'd like to see if I could go a little further. Could vernacular images be pre-theoretical? Visuals that are being assessed through the lens that theory does not influence? That goes along with "unschooled"--visuals that are not influenced by direct analysis. Helmers, through Lynne Pearce, describes two "readers of art" (66): the naive viewer and the knowledgeable viewer. The naive viewer is preferred because they can view inductively--not drawn in either direction. I argue that all readers are naive viewers to vernacular images--the visuals that surround us (the "everyday"). Then I ask myself, can images be pre-theoretical; can we view images "naive" of theory? We bring to images our past experiences; our culture shapes which experiences we have--so then does that not mean that we are viewing through a lens of some theory? Even if it's attached to our ideology unconsciously? Is this where "concerned with function" comes in? Can someone, then, make a distinction between "unschooled" and "concerned with function"? If we mean "unschooled" by "outside of academics" then I can agree--but if we mean "unschooled" as uninfluenced by perspective, then how would "concerned with function" come into play here? There's a bunch of questions here, but then I'd like to attempt a definition: the everyday, functioning and filtering through the viewer's ideology (what is good? bad? appropriate? unacceptable?) unconsciously or consciously. To go a bit further, acceptable visuals would go either unnoticed or appreciated--it is allowed to stay unchanged--unacceptable visuals will go noticed and an exigence is created: this is not pleasing, how do I change my circumstances in relation to this?
AESTHETIC: So this brings me to the aesthetic visual; in terms of the last images, aesthetic images are those that are acceptable--visuals that are conceived and received to be accepted into the vernacular. Images viewed as aesthetic meet our expectations of what is beautiful--they could also exceed our expectations, but only through the base of what is already accepted as beautiful, so I guess it doesn't really exceed our expectations. The aesthetic is product-based, object-based--we get our aesthetic from what we see. The product pleases, it is aesthetic. The rhetoric of the image arises in the interpretation, the meaning-making through the function. (I think Helmers says this but I can't find it in my pages). Once something is being communicated beyond the aesthetic expressive frame, the image goes beyond aesthetic into rhetorical. So I would argue that images cannot be both aesthetic and rhetorical at the same time. I know people are going to disagree with me on this, but I'd like to jar some conversation to persuade me otherwise.
Hey Joe - look at my comment on Dave's post and let me know what you think. :)
ReplyDeleteI'm back. :) I'm reading about memoirs, and although this isn't necessarily a visual text, the way this author describes memoir sounds a little like the aesthetic and the vernacular coming together in one text. What do you think?
ReplyDelete"Memoir is the speaking 'I' of a trusting author, walking hand in hand with the reader down a path both know well. It mirrors the open-faced trait of Americans and their speech. It remains open to the nostalgic and the sentimental. It personalizes horror. It belongs equally to a professional writer and a dockworker, a home health-care nurse and your Uncle Donny." - Thomas Larson in "The Memoir and the Memoirist", page 186
Coincidentally, I just posted a comment on your blog that connects pretty well with what you just commented with haha
ReplyDeleteThe memoir is possibly working to hack into the collective memory that Helmers (I think) talks about? Finding that which is shared--but what about how "it personalizes horror"--can horror be aesthetic? Things I was asking myself.
Joe,
ReplyDeleteWhen you say imgages cannot be aesthetic and rhetorical at the same time, do you mean cannot be thought of the same by one viewer? I'm guessing this is what you mean because one image could be seen as aesthetic by some and rhetorical by others.I also think that one viewer could appreciate the aesthetics of an image, while separetly appreciating the rhetoric. I can passively look at an image and take in the pleasing design and layout, but then actively look deeper into the image to get a rhetorical understanding of it. Maybe I'm not doing it at the same time, or am I.