Aesthetics of the Everyday

First published Wed Sep 30, 2015

In the history of Western aesthetics, the subject matters that received attention ranged from
natural objects and phenomena, built structures, utilitarian objects, and human actions, to
what is today regarded as the fine arts. However, beginning with the nineteenth century, the
discourse has become increasingly focused on the fine arts. This narrowing attention
occurred despite the prominence of the aesthetic attitude theory in modern aesthetics,
according to which there is virtually no limit to what can become a source of aesthetic
experience. The tendency to equate aesthetics with the philosophy of art became widespread
in twentieth century aesthetics, particularly within the Anglo-American tradition.
Challenges to this rather limited scope of aesthetics began during the latter half of the
twentieth century with a renewed interest in nature and environment, followed by the
exploration of popular arts. Everyday aesthetics continues this trajectory of widening scope
by including objects, events, and activities that constitute people’s daily life. However, it is
more accurate to characterize this recent development as restoring the scope of aesthetics
rather than opening a new arena.
In addition, although not formulated as aesthetic theories, many cultural traditions outside the
Western sphere are concerned with the aesthetics of daily life. In some cultural traditions,
such as Inuit and Navajo, aesthetic considerations are thoroughly integrated in daily
activities, including making things such as tools. Even in other traditions, such as Japanese
and Chinese, with distinctive art-making practices of paintings, literature, theater, and the
like, aesthetic practices permeate people’s daily life. In these cultural traditions, there may
not be a need for an aesthetics discourse specifically devoted to everyday life.
Thus, the perception that everyday aesthetics is a new frontier of aesthetics discourse needs
to be situated in the context of late twentieth-century Anglo-American aesthetics. That is, it
was established as a reaction against what was considered to be an undue restriction on the
scope of aesthetics. It aims to give due regard to the entirety of people’s multi-faceted
aesthetic life, including various ingredients of everyday life: artifacts of daily use, chores
around the house, interactions with other people, and quotidian activities such as eating,
walking, and bathing. Everyday aesthetics also seeks to liberate aesthetic inquiry from an
almost exclusive focus on beauty (and to a certain extent sublimity) characteristic of modern
Western aesthetics. It includes within its purview those qualities that pervade everyday
experience, such as pretty, cute, messy, gaudy, tasteful, dirty, lively, monotonous, to name
only a few. These items and qualities are characterized by their ubiquitous presence in the
daily life of people, regardless of their occupation, lifestyle, economic status, social class,
cultural background, and familiarity with art.
Beyond attending to more items and qualities for its inquiry, everyday aesthetics also raises
theoretical issues that have not received adequate attention from the prevailing mainstream
Western aesthetics. These include: indeterminate identity of the object of aesthetic
experience due to a lack of an institutionally agreed-upon framing; changes and
modifications everyday objects go through; general anonymity of the designer and creator, as
well as absence of any clear authorship behind everyday objects; bodily engagements with
objects and activities and their pragmatic outcome; perceived lack of criteria for aesthetic
judgments. By raising these issues, everyday aesthetics challenges long-held assumptions
underlying art-centered aesthetics discourse. However, everyday aesthetics advocates pose
these challenges not as a way of invalidating the established aesthetics discourse. Rather,
they are meant to shed new light on the prevailing discourse. Just as new forms of art often
introduce qualities and values that were not considered before and enrich the artworld, as
suggested by Arthur Danto, everyday aesthetics proposes to help develop the overall
aesthetics discourse by adding new avenues of inquiry. Accordingly, the account of everyday
aesthetics that follows will focus on these issues that have been raised to illuminate and
challenge the prevailing aesthetics discourse in contemporary Western philosophy.

 1. Recent History
 2. ‘Everyday’ and ‘Aesthetics’ in Everyday Aesthetics
 3. Defamiliarization of the Familiar
 4. Negative Aesthetics
 5. Everyday Aesthetic Qualities
 6. Ambient Aesthetics and Social Aesthetics
 7. Action-Oriented Aesthetics
 8. Blurring the Line between Art and Life
 9. Significance of Everyday Aesthetics
 10. Conclusion
 Bibliography
 Academic Tools
 Other Internet Resources
 Related Entries

1. Recent History
With the establishment of environmental aesthetics, efforts to open the field of aesthetics
beyond the fine arts started during the latter half of twentieth century. Almost all writers on
everyday aesthetics derive inspiration from John Dewey’s Art as Experience, first published
in 1934. In particular, his discussion of “having an experience” demonstrates that aesthetic
experience is possible in every aspect of people’s daily life, ranging from eating a meal or
solving a math problem to having a job interview. By locating ‘the aesthetic’ in the character
of an experience rather than in a specific kind of object or situation, Dewey paves the way
for everyday aesthetics advocates to explore diverse aspects of people’s aesthetic lives
without a pre-configured boundary.
If Dewey’s aesthetics can be considered as the classic for everyday aesthetics discourse,
Arnold Berleant’s early works on aesthetic field and engagement continue the trajectory.
Despite focusing on the experience of art and without specifically referring to the term
‘everyday aesthetics,’ Berleant’s early works provide a phenomenological account of
aesthetic experience by emphasizing the interactive process between the experiencing agent
and the object of experience. This notion of ‘engagement’ as a model for aesthetics is
applicable to one’s experience beyond art. Indeed, his subsequent works on environmental
aesthetics, both natural and built, and more recently on social aesthetics and negative
aesthetics have been consistently opening the scope of aesthetic inquiry.
Other notable early works specifically addressing issues of everyday aesthetics include
Melvin Rader and Bertram Jessup’s Art and Human Values (1976), Joseph
Kupfer’s Experience as Art: Aesthetics in Everyday Life (1983) and David Novitz’s The
Boundaries of Art: A Philosophical Inquiry into the Place of Art in Everyday Life (1992), as
well as Thomas Leddy’s “Everyday Surface Aesthetic Qualities: ‘Neat,’ ‘Messy,’ ‘Clean,’
‘Dirty’” (1995) and “Sparkle and Shine” (1997). Marcia Eaton devotes considerable attention
to aesthetic issues beyond art, with a particular emphasis on aesthetics’ intersection with the
ethical, in her Aesthetics and the Good Life (1989) and later in Merit, Aesthetic and
Ethical (2001).
The first anthology on this topic, The Aesthetics of Everyday Life, edited by Andrew Light
and Jonathan M. Smith, published in 2005, includes many articles that together lay the
groundwork for more recent literature on everyday aesthetics. A more recent collection is the
Special Volume on “Artification” (2012), edited by Ossi Naukkarinen and Yuriko Saito,
published in Contemporary Aesthetics. Articles in this collection explore the increasingly
popular strategy of employing an artistic approach in various dimensions of life, ranging
from business and education to science and sports.
Paralleling these works devoted to the wide scope of everyday aesthetics are works dedicated
to specific aspects of daily life, such as gustatory aesthetics (Korsmeyer 1999), domestic
aesthetics (McCracken 2001), body aesthetics (Shusterman 1999, 2013; Bhatt 2013; Irvin
forthcoming), functional beauty (Parsons and Carlson 2008) and the aesthetics of design
(Forsey 2013).
The first single-author work with the specific title Everyday Aesthetics, accompanied by the
subtitle Prosaics, the Play of Culture and Social Identities, was written by Katya Mandoki
and published in 2007. She offers an extensive critique of the prevailing Western aesthetic
discourse burdened by what she characterizes as “fetishes” regarding art and beauty, as well
as a detailed semiotic analysis of aesthetics involved in areas ranging from religion and
education to family and medicine. Almost immediately after the publication of Mandoki’s
book, Yuriko Saito’s Everyday Aesthetics was published. Mandoki’s and Saito’s works, both
featuring the title Everyday Aesthetics, together secured the place of everyday aesthetics as a
sub-discipline of aesthetics. With the publication of Thomas Leddy’s The Extraordinary in
the Ordinary: the Aesthetics of Everyday Life (2012), the discourse of everyday aesthetics
became firmly established. These books have given rise to an increasingly lively debate on
the subject in journals such as The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, The British
Journal of Aesthetics, and Contemporary Aesthetics, as indicated in the bibliography.
Although Saito’s work includes extensive discussion of Japanese aesthetics, the first
explicitly and specifically multi-cultural exploration of everyday aesthetics appeared in the
form of an anthology, Aesthetics of Everyday Life: East and West (2014), edited by Liu
Yuedi and Curtis Carter, with a number of pieces on Chinese aesthetics.

2. ‘Everyday’ and ‘Aesthetics’ in Everyday

Aesthetics
Because everyday aesthetics was initially proposed as a way of overcoming modern Western
aesthetics’ limitation on what comprises people’s aesthetic life as its subject matter, its scope
has not been clearly defined except as including what has not been covered by art-centered
aesthetics. With the development of this discourse, however, questions emerged as to what
constitutes ‘everyday’ and ‘aesthetics’ in everyday aesthetics. Inclusion of not only daily
activities like eating, grooming, dressing, and cleaning but also occasional and even rare
events such as parties, sporting events, holidays, weddings, and travelling calls into question
whether ‘everyday’ should be understood literally. Furthermore, what may count as an
everyday activity for one person may be a special occasion for other people. Working on a
farm constitutes a farmer’s everyday life, while it is a rare experience sought by a city
dweller who participates in a tour that incorporates work experience, such as a day working
in a vineyard. Besides people’s occupation and lifestyle, diverse living environments
determine what is included in their everyday life. For those residents in a densely populated
urban area with a developed network of public transportation, as well as for those living in
different parts of the world, riding in a car may be a rare occasion, while it is a daily routine
for many living in typical American suburbs.
The notion of ‘everyday’ thus becomes hopelessly unwieldy, and it is impossible to come up
with a list of objects and activities that belong to it. However, one could point to some core
activities and objects that transcend individual and cultural differences, such as eating,
dressing, grooming, shelter, and basic utilitarian objects, such as clothing, furniture, and
eating implements (Melchionne 2013). The most important factor for the purpose of
everyday aesthetics, however, is not so much an inventory of objects and activities but rather
the typical attitude we take toward them. We tend to experience these objects and activities
mostly with pragmatic considerations that eclipse their aesthetic potentials (Bullough 1912–
13; Stolnitz 1969; Ziff 1997). These experiences are generally regarded as ordinary,
commonplace, and routine. Such characterization may be the best way to capture ‘everyday,’
allowing diverse occupations, lifestyles, and living environments that give rise to different
ingredients of everyday life. Locating the defining characteristics of ‘everyday’ in attitude
and experience rather than in specific kinds of objects and activities has the advantage of
accounting for how works of art, such as paintings, could be an ingredient of somebody’s
everyday experience if his job is to wrap, package, and ship them.
Many advocates of everyday aesthetics also include rare, standout, and more artistically-
charged occasions in its scope. For example, a holiday celebration is laden with all kinds of
aesthetic considerations, ranging from interior and exterior decorations to special dishes, a
carefully-arranged table setting and festive music. Many of us specifically attend to these
aesthetic aspects both as providers and as receivers, giving aesthetics a predominant role in
these experiences. In light of these different kinds of experiences, some suggest allowing
gradation among various objects and activities, with one end designating the most quotidian
objects and activities that are experienced primarily with a pragmatic mindset, and the other
end those occasions standing out from daily life and marked by much more conscious
attention to the aesthetic dimension, rendering the experience more like art appreciation
(Naukkarinen 2013; Leddy 2015).
Debates surrounding what constitutes ‘aesthetics’ in everyday aesthetics are not unique to
this discourse. The nature of aesthetics has been a perennial point of contention in aesthetics
at large, whether regarding fine arts, nature, popular culture or everyday objects and
activities. However, there are at least two points of particular interest and significance
regarding the notion of ‘aesthetics’ in everyday aesthetics. First is the status of bodily
sensations. They can be felt by us as we receive sensory stimulation such as the wafting
smell of baked goods, the sensation of silk against our skin, the taste of sushi, or the feeling
of massage. They can also result from bodily activities, such as running, chopping
vegetables, using tools, or mowing the lawn. The debate regarding whether or not these
bodily sensations belong to the realm of aesthetics proper is not new. The best-known
classical treatment of this issue is Immanuel Kant’s distinction between the beautiful and the
agreeable or the pleasant. Many contemporary art projects also give rise to this discussion
through the creation of olfactory art, art happenings that include cooking and eating, and
participatory art that requires the audience’s bodily engagement. However, the issue becomes
more acute with everyday aesthetics because our daily experience is permeated by sensory
experiences and bodily activities.
Another important issue regarding the term ‘aesthetics’ in everyday aesthetics is the
distinction between its honorific and classificatory use. In both aesthetics discourse and
common vernacular, the term ‘aesthetic’ is generally used in the honorific sense. Hence,
something having an aesthetic property is generally regarded positively and gaining an
aesthetic experience is understood to mean that it is a meaningful and satisfying experience.
However, many, though not all, advocates of everyday aesthetics return to the root meaning
of ‘aesthetic’ as experience gained through sensibility, whatever its evaluative valence may
be. Some things strike us with powerful positive aesthetic values, as in a great work of art or
a spectacular landscape, while other things do not affect us much because they are boring,
non-descript, or plain. Then there are those objects and phenomena that offend or disturb us
profoundly because their sensuous appearance is hideous, monstrous, or appalling, without
any overall redeeming value such as an artistic message. Everyday aesthetics casts a wide net
for capturing these diverse dimensions of our aesthetic life. It is noteworthy that in academic
discourses outside of philosophical aesthetics, ‘aesthetics’ is often regarded in the
classificatory sense, such as the aesthetics of manners, which includes both polite and rude
behaviors, and the aesthetics of politics which, among other things, refers to the social and
political construction of what counts as the sensible (Rancière 2009).
3. Defamiliarization of the Familiar
If ‘everyday’ is characterized as the familiar, ordinary, commonplace, and routine, regardless
of the specific content that varies from people to people depending upon their lifestyle,
occupation, living environment, and other factors, what makes its aesthetic appreciation
possible? The following response dominates everyday aesthetics discourse: the aesthetic
appreciation of everyday life requires defamiliarization, making strange, or casting an aura.
Because we are most of the time preoccupied by the task at hand in our daily life, pragmatic
considerations mask the aesthetic potential of commonplace objects and ordinary activities.
Once we experience them with a different attitude and perceptual gear, we can unearth latent
aesthetic values in the most ordinary and routine. This view can be interpreted as a faithful
application of the claim made by the aesthetic attitude theory that theoretically anything can
be an object of aesthetic experience. Mundane objects can acquire a kind of ‘aura’ that
heightens their aesthetic value (Leddy 2008, 2012a; Leonhardt 1985; Tuan 1993; Visser
1997; Gumbrecht 2006). According to this interpretation, what is new about everyday
aesthetics is its illumination of those aspects of our lives that are normally neglected or
ignored because they are eclipsed by standout aesthetic experiences we often have with
works of art and nature. More careful attention and a different mindset can reveal a
surprisingly rich aesthetic dimension of the otherwise mundane, non-memorable, ordinary
parts of our daily life. Many works of art are helpful in guiding us through the morasses of
everyday life toward a rewarding aesthetic experience (Dillard 1974; Prose 1999; Stabb
2002; Martin 2004).
This trajectory of everyday aesthetics is welcomed by a number of thinkers for its
contribution to enriching life experience, encouraging mindful living, and facilitating
satisfaction without problematic consequences that often accompany a hedonistic lifestyle
(Irvin 2008b; Melchionne 2014; Shusterman 2013). At the same time, some point out the
danger of over-emphasizing defamiliarization as a precondition for everyday aesthetics. That
is, this way of accounting for everyday aesthetics risks losing the very everyday-ness of
everyday experience, thereby becoming unable to capture the aesthetic texture of everyday
life characterized by its familiar, ordinary, and mundane quality (Haapala 2005; Felski 2002,
2009; Highmore 2004, 2011a). The challenge then becomes how to capture the very ordinary
everyday-ness of everyday life while engaging aesthetically. That is, experiencing and
appreciating the ordinary as extraordinary follows a rather well-trodden path in aesthetics
discourse, while experiencing and appreciating the ordinary as ordinary poses a specific
challenge to everyday aesthetics discourse.
One proposed response to this challenge is to regard qualities such as the familiar and the
ordinary as positively appreciable as a counterpart to those qualities that make some
experiences stand out for being intense and extraordinary. Though not stunning or intense,
those qualities characterizing the ordinary life provide a quiet calm, comfort, stability, and
security to our life experience (Haapala 2005). It is difficult to imagine how we can handle,
let alone enjoy, a constant series of extraordinary, intense experiences with no restful period.
Many aspects of domestic life instead offer comfort and stability, in short hominess, because
of the very ordinary and repetitive nature, and such qualities are indispensable for good life
and appreciable in their own right (Irvin 2008b; Melchionne 2014, Highmore 2004, 2011a).
In contrast, others characterize the ordinariness of everyday life as a dreary humdrum with
no aesthetic merits. It is monotonous, boring, and dull; John Dewey even goes so far as to
declare such humdrum as “anesthetic.” Unless these aspects of our life get defamiliarized and
made into “an” experience in Dewey’s sense or transformed into something extraordinary,
they are outside the purview of aesthetics, according to this view.
Some question, however, whether there are any parts of our experience that are “anesthetic.”
They claim that the lack of coherent structure, slackness, monotony, and humdrum
themselves characterize the aesthetic texture of everyday life, if we understand ‘aesthetic’ in
the classificatory, not honorific, sense (Highmore 2011a). Deficiency in positive aesthetic
qualities, such as exciting intensity, coherent narrative structure, or pervasive unifying
theme, does not necessarily mean lack of aesthetic qualities. Those aspects of our lives can
still be regarded as permeated by aesthetic qualities, though negative, such as dreariness and
painful monotony. Such negative characterization of everyday life has often been the subject
of Marxist interpretations of workers’ daily lives, whether at work or at home, providing a
platform for rebellious movements, such as the Situationist International (Highmore 2010).

4. Negative Aesthetics
This account of everyday life as pervaded by negative aesthetic qualities rather than lacking
any aesthetic qualities gives rise to ‘negative aesthetics.’ This notion may at first appear to be
an oxymoron, if ‘aesthetics’ is understood in the usual honorific sense. Katya Mandoki and
Arnold Berleant stress the importance of attending to this aesthetically negative aspect of
people’s lives that is unfortunately all-too-common (Mandoki 2007; Berleant 2010, 2012).
Negative aesthetic qualities such as ugliness, grotesqueness, repulsiveness, and disgust have
not been absent in the prevailing aesthetics discourse, but they don’t occupy a prominent
place. Furthermore, more often than not, these negative qualities become justified as a
necessary means to facilitating an ultimately positive aesthetic experience. For example, a
disgusting content of art may be necessary for conveying an overall message, such as an
exposé and critique of social ills, or a repulsive sight in nature, such as a predator devouring
its prey, can be appreciated as an integral part of nature’s process.
Negative aesthetic qualities experienced as negative, in comparison, are quite pervasive in
everyday life and they directly affect the quality of life. They range from less noteworthy
qualities such as the boring, the monotonous, the uninspiring, the banal, and the dull to
“aesthetic violence,” “aesthetic pain,” “aesthetic poisoning,” or “aesthetic assault,” such as
the hideous, the offensive, the repulsive, and the vulgar (Mandoki 2007). These more
dramatically negative qualities can be experienced in a squalid urban space, deafening noise,
cluttered billboard with gaudy signage and sordid visual images, stench from a nearby
factory, and the like. In light of the fact that aesthetics has tended to confine its scope to
positive qualities and experiences, everyday aesthetics challenges us to pay serious attention
to the aesthetically negative aspects of our lives because of their immediate impact on the
quality of life.
The focus on negative aesthetics is particularly important in everyday aesthetics discourse
because it leads to what may be regarded as its activist dimension. When confronted with
negative aesthetic qualities, we generally don’t remain a mere spectator but rather spring into
action to eliminate, reduce, or transform them. Even if we don’t or can’t act, we wish we
could do so and we think we should. According to the prevailing mode of aesthetic analysis
regarding art, and to a certain extent nature, our aesthetic life is primarily characterized from
a spectator’s point of view. We are not literally engaged in an activity with the object other
than aesthetic engagement. Even if we are inspired to act by art or nature, the resultant action
is generally indirect, such as joining a political movement or making a contribution to an
organization.
In comparison, the action we undertake motivated by negative aesthetics in daily life has a
direct impact on life. On a personal level, we launder a stained shirt and iron it, clean the
carpet soiled by spilled wine, repaint the exterior of the house, open a window to get fresh air
after cooking fish indoors, tidy up the living room, reformat a document for a clearer look,
and the list goes on. These actions are taken primarily in response to our negative aesthetic
reaction against stain, wrinkle, peeling paint, fishy smell, mess and clutter, and disorganized
look. On a community level, eyesore-like abandoned structures get torn down or given a
make-over, a squalid neighborhood gets cleaned up, and ordinances are created to eliminate
factory stench and cluttered billboards. At least we often work, or believe we should work,
toward improving the aesthetics of everyday environment and life. Negative aesthetic
experiences are thus useful and necessary in detecting what is harmful to the quality of life
and environment and provide an impetus for improvement (Berleant 2012, 2012).

5. Everyday Aesthetic Qualities

However, questions can be raised as to whether qualities such as messiness and clutter
belong to aesthetics discourse. Appreciation of more typical aesthetic qualities, such as
beauty, sublimity, elegance, grace, artistic excellence, powerful expression, and the like, is
said to require a certain degree of aesthetic sensibility or ‘standard of taste’ that needs to be
cultivated. Moreover, their appreciation often demands a certain conceptual understanding of
things, such as the object’s historical and cultural context, the artist’s oeuvre, and some basic
information regarding nature, among others. In comparison, the detection of the everyday
aesthetic qualities in question, such as messiness, shabbiness, cuteness, and prettiness, seems
to result from an almost knee-jerk reaction without any background knowledge or aesthetic
sophistication and, as such, does not make a worthy subject matter for aesthetics.
Two responses have been given to this challenge. First, even if some qualities can be
experienced without the same kind and degree of aesthetic sensibility or sophistication
required for art appreciation, this alone does not render them outside the realm of aesthetics.
Even a seemingly unreflective response to qualities, such as dirty, messy, and disorganized,
is not free of a cultural and contextual framework (Douglas 2002; Saito 2007). Second, it is
possible to provide a kind of sliding scale with one end requiring utmost sensibility often
obtained after extensive education and practice, such as the ability to appreciate twelve-tone
music, Joyce’s novels, Japanese Noh theater, and bogs, and the other end requiring very little
education and practice, such as Norman Rockwell paintings, a military march, a sparkling
jewelry piece, and a colorful flower garden. Some aesthetic qualities can be considered
‘major league’ or heavy-weight while other aesthetic qualities are ‘minor league’ or light-
weight, without disqualifying the latter from the realm of the aesthetic altogether. After all,
they refer to our qualitative response to the sensory experience of the objects and phenomena
(Leddy 1995, 1997, 2012a, 2012b; Harris 2000; Ngai 2012; Postrel 2013; Mollar 2014).
If minor league aesthetic qualities lack sophistication and profundity compared to major
league aesthetic qualities, a case can be made that they make up for this lack by their
pervasiveness in daily life with serious consequences. While we do experience beauty and
sublimity in our daily life, such occasions are rather rare. More often than not, in our
everyday life, we judge things for being pretty, nice, interesting, cute, sweet, adorable,
boring, plain, drab, dowdy, shabby, gaudy, ostentatious, and the like. It is particularly
important to attend to these qualities because, due to their prevalence and relatively easy
recognition, they exert a powerful influence on our decisions and actions regarding mundane
matters (Saito 2012). Indeed, strategies in advertising, political campaigning, and propaganda
often make use of these qualities to direct people’s behavior (Postrel 2003; Mandoki 2007;
Saito 2007; Sartwell 2010). This consideration leads some thinkers to charge everyday
aesthetics with the task of cultivating aesthetic literacy and vigilance by critically analyzing
these qualities.
A similar controversy exists regarding the ‘aesthetic credential’ of some experiences
(Dowling 2010). It concerns the purely bodily-oriented responses such as the sensation of
scratching an itch, receiving a massage, drinking tea, or smelling fishy odor (Irvin 2006,
2008). There is a concern that they are too private and subjective to allow any inter-
subjective discussion and critical discourse, resulting in subjective relativism. Kant’s
distinction between the beautiful and the merely agreeable is often invoked to support this
criticism (Parsons and Carlson 2008; Soucek 2009; Dowling 2010).
In response, some thinkers point out that it is a mistake to treat these bodily sensations as an
isolated, singular sensory experience. According to them, in ordinary life, we almost never
have an experience of smell, taste, or touch by itself. Instead, our experiences are usually
multi-sensory or synaesthetic and take place in a specific context (Howes 2005; Howes and
Classen 2014). Scratching an itch can be a part of experiencing a mosquito-infested bog, or
experienced as an annoyance caused by the stiff fabric label sewn on the inside of a new shirt
collar. The taste of tea cannot be separated from its aroma, visual appearance, and the tactile
sensations of texture and warmth as one holds the mug and presses the lip against its rim. All
of these sensory experiences take place in a certain surrounding and situation with its own
ambiance, as well as within the specific flow of one’s daily life. One may grab a cup of tea
on the run and gulp it down to get the caffeine kick as one rushes to a meeting, or savor each
sip as one sits in front of a fireplace relaxing, or participate in the Japanese tea ceremony.
Even if the tea itself were to remain the same, the experience surrounding its ingestion
changes, sometimes even affecting the taste of tea itself (Irvin 2009a; Melchionne 2011,
2014). Thus, purely bodily sensation can be folded into the atmosphere or ambiance
constituted by many ingredients. Then what we appreciate is not merely a singular bodily
sensation in isolation such as the tactile sensation or smell but the fittingness or, one may
even say, Kantian ‘purposiveness,’ or lack thereof, created by the relationship between and
among factors making up the atmosphere.
Presumed subjective relativism regarding a purely bodily sensation, therefore, can be
mitigated at least to a certain extent if it is regarded as one of the many ingredients that make
up a larger whole permeated by a unified atmosphere, such as a sense of well-being,
contentment, comfort, or negatively, a sense of isolation, discomfort, uneasiness, or anxiety.
Such an appreciation (or depreciation) allows some degree of inter-subjective
communication and sharing; indeed many literary narratives provide a rich reservoir of such
experiences.

6. Ambient Aesthetics and Social Aesthetics

This attention to atmosphere or ambiance of a certain situation constituted by various
ingredients gives rise to one newly emerging subfield of everyday aesthetics: ambient
aesthetics. Gernot Böhme suggests that atmosphere should be the central focus of new
aesthetics. In our daily life, we often experience the atmospheric character of a situation:
tense or relaxed, cheerful or melancholic, exuberant or subdued, inviting or alienating,
electrifying or dull. Sometimes a distinct character of a situation is intentionally orchestrated,
oftentimes in a special occasions like a wedding or a funeral, with specifically selected
music, decorations, attire, and choreographed movements, to name a few. Some other times,
a unified atmosphere arises spontaneously when various elements making up the physical
environment and human interactions and movements within it happen to congeal (Böhme
1993, 1998; Miyahara 2014).
Although in our daily life we experience and appreciate (or depreciate) a certain atmosphere
or ambiance quite frequently, it has not received adequate attention in the aesthetics
discourse primarily because of the lack of clearly defined and delineated ‘object’ of the
experience. Without a clear ‘frame’ around the object of experience, critics suggest, inter-
subjective discussion of its aesthetics is not possible. Nor are there clear criteria, such as art
historical conventions, that are helpful in determining what is and is not a part of the
aesthetic experience (Parsons and Carlson 2008). Ambiance, air, or atmosphere is indeed
subjectively-oriented in the sense that one’s experience becomes colored accordingly.
However, it should also be noted that it is not purely subjective or private, as claimed by
critics, insofar as it refers to objectively identifiable features of the environment and
situation.
Part of what determines the ambiance or atmosphere is human interactions. The character of
such interactions is constituted by the participants’ personality and relationships with others
that are subject to aesthetic considerations. In addition to what one does and says, one can be
considered warm, cold, formal, aloof, friendly, intimidating, gentle, and so forth, largely due
to aesthetic factors such as tone of voice, way of speaking, facial expression, bodily gesture
and posture, and outward presentation such as clothing, hair style, ornamentation, and the
like. Sometimes the moral character of one’s action is assessed by aesthetic dimensions over
and beyond what the action accomplishes. For example, one may gobble up a lovingly
prepared and meticulously arranged meal carelessly and indifferently, or one may take time
and savor every bite respectfully and mindfully to show one’s appreciation for the cook. One
can close a door roughly, making a loud noise and startling others, or one can close it gently
and carefully so as not to disturb others. Finally, one can help a person in need grudgingly
and spitefully or do so with care and good cheer (Saito forthcoming).
In these examples, important desiderata in aesthetic experiences can also be regarded as
desirable in human relationships: open-mindedness to accept and appreciate diversity,
respect and reciprocity, full and sincere engagement, among others. Established as a sub-
category of everyday aesthetics by Arnold Berleant, social aesthetics calls attention to the
fact that the aesthetics plays a surprisingly and often unrecognized role in determining the
moral character of actions, persons, and human interactions (Berleant 2005, 2010, 2012).
Furthermore, social aesthetics promotes cultivating virtues through everyday practice. One’s
kindness, compassion, thoughtfulness, and respect require appropriate expressions guided by
aesthetic sensibility and skills, in addition to accomplishing a certain deed. Harmonious and
cooperative interaction with others also requires aesthetic sensibility to decipher group
dynamics and determine how best to help create a certain atmosphere.

7. Action-Oriented Aesthetics
Social aesthetics also sheds light on another new avenue of inquiry ushered in by everyday
aesthetics: the aesthetic dimension of doing things instead of, or in addition to, the
experience gained as a spectator or beholder. The traditional mode of aesthetic inquiry is
primarily concerned with analyzing the aesthetic experience of a spectator who derives
aesthetic pleasure from contemplating an object (or a phenomenon or an event). Even in such
an experience, as Berleant’s engagement model indicates, the person is never passive; she is
actively engaged with the object through exercising imagination and interacts with it
perceptually, intellectually, and emotionally. However, in the most literal sense, she is still an
onlooker of the object: a painting, a symphony, a tea bowl, a figure skating performance, a
flower garden, a piece of furniture, an automobile, a house, and a freshly laundered shirt.
While everyday aesthetics includes such spectator-oriented aesthetics, a major part
constituting the flow of everyday life is our active engagement with doing things by handling
an object, executing an act, and producing certain results, all motivated by aesthetic
considerations. Until recently, very little has been explored of the aesthetic dimensions of
active involvement in painting a canvas, playing a violin, skating, gardening, repairing a
garment, hanging laundry outdoors, and giving birth (Rautio 2009; Lintott 2012) . Perhaps
food aesthetics illustrates this contrast most clearly. Food aesthetics generally focuses on the
taste of the food rather than the experience of eating itself or the activity of cooking (Curtin
and Heldke 1992; Visser 1997; Giard 1998; Korsmeyer 1999; Shusterman 2013).
The difficulty of accounting for the aesthetics involved in these activities from the
participants’ perspective is the same difficulty facing ambient aesthetics: the lack of clear
delineation of object-hood of aesthetic experience. The constituents of an aesthetic object are
more or less clear in the case of a painting or a flower garden appreciated from the
spectator’s point of view. Furthermore, there is an object one can point to for inter-subjective
communication. However, there is no equivalent ‘object’ of aesthetic experience when it
comes to an activity one undertakes. This lack, according to some thinkers, signals the
demise of any reasonable discussion as the subject matter becomes hopelessly private with
little possibility of inter-subjective discourse. While we can meaningfully debate the
aesthetic merit of a painting or a flower garden by giving reasons to justify our judgment, it
is difficult to imagine an equivalent discussion of my experience of bodily engagement when
executing brush ink painting or digging the ground and planting flowers for the flower
garden.
If one accepts John Dewey’s notion of having “an experience” which gives an aesthetic
character to whatever experience one is undergoing, it becomes a challenge to facilitate a
critical discourse to determine whether or not one is truly having “an experience.” The act of
planting flowers involves a multi-sensory experience and bodily engagement, as well as
designing the garden’s layout. These ingredients may come together in a unified manner to
give rise to a sense of joy felt by the gardener at the arrival of spring and the anticipation of
fully-blossomed flowers. It is difficult to imagine how this gardener’s experience can be
subjected to a critical discourse in the same way the flower bed gets evaluated aesthetically
for its design. Can we have a debate about whether the gardener’s experience was truly
aesthetic or whether it provided a rich or only mediocre aesthetic experience? If not, is this
aspect of our life forever closed to any mode of aesthetic inquiry?
The difficulty felt here regarding the aesthetics of ambiance and actions could be attributed
to the mode of contemporary Western aesthetic inquiry which is predominantly judgment-
oriented (Böhme 1993). Much of mainstream aesthetic debates surrounds the objectivity and
justifiability of aesthetic judgment. A judgment presupposes the determinability of an object
and its inter-subjectively sharable experience. Anything falling outside of it is considered
hopelessly subjective and relativistic. However, phenomenological accounts of bodily
engagement in cooking, sports, and other mundane activities are plentiful not only in some
aestheticians’ writings but also, perhaps more commonly, in writings by practitioners and
literary authors. Body aesthetics is also garnering more attention in recent philosophy and a
large part of its concern is the bodily engagement in aesthetic experience (Bhatt 2013; Irvin
forthcoming).
Furthermore, some agree that the practice of mundane activities, domestic chores in
particular, provides an opportunity for one to exercise imagination and creativity to inspire
an aesthetic experience (McCracken 2001; Lee 2010; Highmore 2011a). For example, the
activity of outdoor laundry hanging can be a chance for the person to arrange and hang the
items in an aesthetically pleasing way to express her respect and thoughtfulness toward her
neighbors and passersby who are inevitably exposed to the visual parade of laundered items.
At the same time, this activity will occasion her appreciation of the arrival of spring after a
long winter, as well as anticipation of the sweet smell and crisp texture of dried items thanks
to the sunshine and fresh air carried by the breeze (Rautio 2009). Dismissing these
experiences from aesthetic discourse because they do not fit the expected format of analysis
and cannot be subjected to a verdict-oriented discourse unduly impoverishes the rich content
of our aesthetic life. In addition, these experiences can be generated and shared communally.
Gardening, cooking, and participation in sporting activities can be a group activity and the
participants can share and help with each other to mutually enrich and enhance aesthetic
experiences by pointing out the aesthetic contribution of some aspects that others may have
missed.

8. Blurring the Line between Art and Life

The emergence of everyday aesthetics discourse parallels the increasing attempt at blurring
the distinction between art and life in today’s Western artworld. Although there have been
many examples throughout art history of depicting slices of everyday life, such as Dutch still
life paintings, twentieth-century art introduced and experimented with different modes of
appropriating everyday life, most famously with the use of ready-mades. Since then, artists
have been trying to overcome the long-held separation between art and real life in a number
of ways: rejecting the art institutional setting as a location for their art; denying the necessity
of authorial authority; embracing various changes made to their works both by nature and
human agency; blurring the creator/spectator dichotomy by collaborating with the general
public to create art as a joint venture; changing the role of the artist from the
creator/choreographer to a facilitator who provides an occasion or an event for things to
happen; literally improving the environment and society by planting trees, cleaning a river,
and playing the role of a social worker to promote a dialogue among people in conflict; and
engaging in mundane activities like cooking and farming with tangible products for
consumption. These attempts have given rise to a number of genres, including situationist art,
conceptual art, environmental art, happening, performance, activist art, socially engaged art,
and art projects characterized as embodying “relational aesthetics” or “dialogical aesthetics”
(Kaprow 1993; Spaid 2002, 2012; Johnstone 2008; Kester 2004, 2011; Bishop 2012;
Bourriaud 2002; Dezeuze 2006).
Paralleling the movement of art to embrace everyday life, there is a movement in the
opposite direction: for everyday life to embrace art. The newly emerging and increasingly
popular strategy of ‘artification’ is one such example. It is the deployment of art and art-like
ways of thinking and acting in those areas of life which have not been traditionally
associated with art or aesthetics: medicine, business, education, sports, and science, among
others (Naukkarinen and Saito 2012). Art and aesthetics in this context are not regarded as
decorative amenities or prettifying touches to human life and the world. Rather, this strategy
is based upon the premise that art and aesthetics can be a powerful ally in directing human
endeavors and actions and determining the quality of activities and environments. Such
effects range from facilitating creativity and imagination in educational and business
ventures and providing humane and healing environments for the vulnerable population, such
as hospital patients and nursing home residents, to rendering scientific data easily graspable
(Pine and Gilmore 1998; Linstead 2000; Postrel 2003; Howes 2005, 2013; Dee 2010;
Duncum 2007; Tavin 2007; Vihma 2012; Moss and O’Neill 2013, 2014).

9. Significance of Everyday Aesthetics

While the power of everyday aesthetics can be harnessed to improve the quality of life, it can
also be used to serve a political agenda or a business goal. As stated in the section on the
Everyday Aesthetic Qualities above, everyday aesthetic responses often guide people’s
actions in the most direct way. If something attracts us with its aesthetic appeal, we tend to
protect it, purchase it, or try to maintain its aesthetic value; on the other hand, if we don’t
find an object or an environment aesthetically appealing, we tend to be indifferent to its fate,
discard it, or try to make it more attractive. In particular, today’s global capitalist economy is
fueled by ‘perceived obsolescence’ regarding the products’ fashionableness and stylishness
with little to no improvement in their functional values. Additional aesthetic ‘hidden
persuaders’ include branding, advertising campaigns, and environments aesthetically
orchestrated for stores. These positive aesthetic values of and surrounding a product often
hide various instances of ‘ugliness’ involved in its manufacturing process and afterlife. The
negative aesthetics associated with manufacturing includes environmental devastation caused
by resource extraction and pollution, and dismal working conditions of the factory workers,
often in developing nations, who are forced to endure aesthetic deprivation, not to mention
health and safety hazards. The negative aesthetics of the product’s afterlife can be seen in the
ever-increasing volume of discarded items, no longer considered trendy and fashionable, not
only in municipal landfills but in the ocean. Such ‘trash’ is also shipped to developing
nations where re-usable, and often toxic, parts are harvested by local people with no
protective gear.
Negative consequences of everyday aesthetics can also be found in the American attraction
to the weed-free, velvety-smooth, uniformly green lawn. Creation and maintenance of such a
look is often accompanied by serious environmental ramifications, such as excessive water
use and chemical fertilizer, herbicide, and insecticide. When outdoor laundry hanging and
wind turbines are judged to be an eyesore, communities create an ordinance to prohibit them,
preventing the opportunity to create a more sustainable way of living (Duerksen and Goebel
1999; Saito 2004; Gray 2012). Aesthetics also plays a primary role in producing a desired
appearance of humans as well as non-human animals, with problematic, sometimes
devastating, results (Rhode 2010; Lintott 2003; Brand 2000, 2012; Tuan 1984).
Contrariwise, the success of sustainable design and goods produced under humane conditions
often depends upon the acceptance of new aesthetic paradigms, such as gardens consisting of
wildflowers or edible plants, garments and furniture made with recycled or reused materials,
and green buildings that reduce literal footprints on the land as well as carbon footprints.
Some work has also been done to explore the ways in which moral virtues, such as respect,
thoughtfulness, and humility can be expressed not only by persons but also by the aesthetic
features of objects and built structures and environments (Berleant 2005, 2010, 2012;
Berleant and Carlson 2007; Chapman 2006; Norman 1990; Orr 2002; Pallasmaa 1999; Saito
2007; Sepänmaa 1995a, 1995b; Taylor 2000; Whiteley 1993, 1999). In addition, as indicated
by social aesthetics, cultivation of aesthetic sensibility and practice of aesthetic skills can
contribute to facilitating respectful, thoughtful, and humane social interactions
The relationship between the aesthetic and the ethical has been one of the contested issues in
the mainstream aesthetics discourse regarding art. The positions range from their complete
separation supported by aestheticism to their integration advocated by moralists. However,
the ethical implications of art do not have a direct bearing on changing the world. They may
affect the audience’s perception, attitude, and worldview, which may lead them toward a
certain action, but the impact is indirect. In comparison, the aesthetic impact of everyday
 affairs often leads to direct consequences that change the state of the world. Just as in art-
centered aesthetics, however, there are differing views on whether or not and to what degree
the ethical implications should affect the aesthetic value of the object. Some prefer to
separate them and protect the autonomous realm of the aesthetic (Forsey 2013). Others
advocate integration by calling for an aesthetic paradigm shift (Orr 2002; Saito 2007; Maskit
2011).

10. Conclusion
Regardless of how the relationship between the aesthetic and the ethical is conceived, there is
no denying that the power of the aesthetic is considerable. Thus, one important mission of
everyday aesthetics is consciousness-raising and educating the public. Its role is to cultivate
aesthetic literacy and sensibility so that the power of the aesthetic can be harnessed toward
bettering quality of life and the state of the world. The cumulative and collective effects of
these aesthetically-led judgments and actions can direct the society to be more civil and
humane and the world to be more sustainable, or lead them away from these ideals. Given
this power of everyday aesthetics, despite various debates and disagreements outlined above,
aesthetics discourse can no longer exclude a large swath of our everyday life from the scope
of its inquiry.

Bibliography
This bibliography includes only contemporary works in English. For classical philosophical
works and non-Western traditions, consult respective entries.

 Ackerman, Diane, 1991, A Natural History of the Senses, New York: Vintage Books.
 Attfield, Judy, 2000, Wild Things: the Material Culture of Everyday Life, Oxford: Berg.
 Berleant, Arnold, 1970, Aesthetic Field: A Phenomenology of Aesthetic Experience,
Springfield: Thomas.
 –––, 1991, Art and Engagement, Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
 –––, 1992, The Aesthetics of Environment, Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
 –––, 1997, Living in the Landscape: Toward an Aesthetics of Environment, Lawrence:
University Press of Kansas.
 –––, 2004, Re-thinking Aesthetics: Rogue Essays on Aesthetics and the Arts, Aldershot:
Ashgate.
 –––, 2005a, Aesthetics and Environment: Variations on a Theme, Aldershot: Ashgate.
 –––, 2005b, “Ideas for a Social Aesthetic,” in The Aesthetics of Everyday Life, Andrew Light
and Jonathan M. Smith (eds.), New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 23–38.
 –––, 2010, Sensibility and Sense: The Aesthetic Transformation of the Human World, Exeter:
Imprint Academic.
 –––, 2012, Aesthetics Beyond the Arts: New and Recent Essays, Aldershot: Ashgate.
 ––– (ed.), 2013, “A Symposium on Aesthetic Engagement,” Contemporary Aesthetics, 11.
[available online]
 Berleant, Arnold, and Allen Carlson (eds.), 2007, The Aesthetics of Human Environments,
Peterborough: Broadview Press.
 Bhatt, Ritu, (ed.), 2013. Rethinking Aesthetics: The Role of Body in Design, New York:
Routledge.
 Bishop, Claire, 2012, Artificial Hells: Participatory Art and the Politics of Spectatorship,
London: Verso.
 Böhme, Gernot, 1993, “Atmosphere as the Fundamental Concept of a New Aesthetics,”
David Roberts (tr.), Thesis Eleven, 36: 113–126.
 –––, 1998, “Atmosphere as an Aesthetic Concept,” Daidallos, 68: 112–115.
 –––, 2003, “Contribution to the Critique of the Aesthetic Economy,” Thesis Eleven, 73: 71–
92.
 –––, 2010, “On Beauty,” The Nordic Journal of Aesthetics, 39: 22–33.
 Bourriaud, Nicolas, 2002, Relational Aesthetics, Simon Pleasance & Fronza Woods (tr.),
Dijon: les presses du réel.
 Brand, Peg Zeglin (ed.), 2000, Beauty Matters, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
 ––– (ed.), 2012, Beauty Unlimited, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
 Bullough, Edward, 1912–13, “‘Psychical Distance’ as a Factor in Art and an Aesthetic
Principle,” The British Journal of Psychology, 5: 87–118.
 Chapman, Jonathan, 2006, Emotionally Durable Design: Objects, Experiences and Empathy,
Sterling: Earthscan.
 Curtin, Deane W. and Lisa M. Heldke (eds.), Cooking, Eating, Thinking: Transformative
Philosophies of Food, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
 Cwerner, Saulo B. and Alan Metcalfe, 2003, “Storage and Clutter: Discourses and Practices
of Order in the Domestic World,” Journal of Design History, 16 (3): 229–239.
 Danto, Arthur, 2003, The Abuse of Beauty: Aesthetics and the Concept of Art, Chicago: Open
Court.
 De Certeau, Michel, 1988, The Practice of Everyday Life, Steven Rendall (tr.), Berkeley:
University of California Press.
 Dee, Catherine, 2010, “Form, Utility, and the Aesthetics of Thrift in Design
Education,” Landscape Journal, 29 (1–10): 21–35.
 Dewey, John, 1958, Art as Experience, New York: Capricorn Press.
 Dezeuze, Anna, 2006, “Everyday Life, ‘Relational Aesthetics’ and the ‘Transfiguration of
the Commonplace’,” Journal of Visual Art Practice, 5 (3): 143–152.
 Dillard, Annie, 1974, “Seeing,” in Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, New York: Harper’s Magazine
Press.
 Douglas, Mary, 2002, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concept of Pollution and Taboo,
London: Routledge.
 Dowling, Christopher, 2010, “The Aesthetics of Daily Life,” British Journal of Aesthetics,
50 (3): 225–242.
 Duerksen, Christopher J., and R. Matthew Goebel, 1999, Aesthetics, Community Character,
and the Law, Chicago: American Planning Association.
 Duncum, Paul, 1999, “A Case for an Art Education of Everyday Aesthetic
Experiences,” Studies in Art Education, 40 (4): 295–311.
 –––, 2007, “Reasons for the Continuing Use of an Aesthetics Discourse in Art
Education,” Art Education, March 2007: 46–51.
 Eaton, Marcia Muelder, 1989, Aesthetics and the Good Life, Rutherford: Farleigh Dickinson
University Press.
 –––, 2001, Merit, Aesthetic and Ethical, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 Featherstone, Mike, 1991, Consumer Culture and Postmodernism, London: SAGE
Publications.
 Felski, Rita, 2002, “Introduction,” New Literary History, 33 (4): 607–622.
 –––, 2009, “Everyday Aesthetics,” The Minnesota Review, 71–72: 171–179.
 Forsey, Jane, 2013, The Aesthetics of Design, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 Giard, Luce, 1998, “Doing Cooking,” in the Practice of Everyday Life, Volume 2: Living &
Cooking, Luce Giard (ed.), Timothy J. Tomasik (tr.), Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press, pp. 149–247.
 Graves, Jane, 1998, “Clutter,” Issues in Architecture Art and Design, 5 (2): 63–69.
 Gray, Tyson-Lord J., 2012, “Beauty or Bane: Advancing an Aesthetic Appreciation of Wind
Turbine Farms” Contemporary Aesthetics, [available online]
 Gumbrecht, Hans Ulrich, 2006, “Aesthetic Experience in Everyday Worlds: Reclaiming an
Unredeemed Utopian Motif,” New Literary History, 37: 299–318.
 Haapala, Arto, 2005, “On the Aesthetics of the Everyday: Familiarity, Strangeness, and the
Meaning of Place,” in Andrew Light and Jonathan M. Smith (eds.), The Aesthetics of
Everyday Life, New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 39–55.
 Haapala, Arto and Christopher Stevens (eds.), 2011, Aesthetic Pathways 1 (2).
 Harris, Daniel, 2000, Cute, Quaint, Hungry and Romantic: The Aesthetics of Consumerism,
Cambridge: Da Capo Press.
 Higgins, Kathleen M. (ed.), 1996, Aesthetics in Perspective, Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace &
Company.
 Higgins, Kathleen, and Joel Rudinow (eds.), 1999, Special Issue: Aesthetics and Popular
Culture. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 57 (2).
 Highmore, Ben (ed.), 2002, The Everyday Life Reader, Oxon: Routledge.
 –––, 2004, “Homework: Routine, Social Aesthetics and the Ambiguity of Everyday
Life,” Cultural Studies, 18 (2/3): 306–327.
 –––, 2010, Everyday Life and Cultural Theory: An Introduction, Oxon: Routledge.
 –––, 2011a, Ordinary Lives: Studies in the Everyday, Oxon: Routledge.
 ––– (ed.), 2011b, Everyday Life, Abingdon, Oxon.
 Howes, David, 2005, “HYPERESTHESIA, or, the Sensual Logic of Late Capitalism,”
in Empire of the Senses: the Sensual Culture Reader, David Howes (ed.). Oxford: Berg, pp.
281–303.
 –––, 2013, “Selling Sensation,” New Scientist, 219 (2934): 28–29.
 Howes, David and Constance Classen, 2014, Ways of Sensing: Understanding the Senses in
Society, London: Routledge.
 Irvin, Sherri, 2008a, “Scratching an Itch,” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 66
(1): 25–35.
 –––, 2008b, “The Pervasiveness of the Aesthetic in Ordinary Experience,” British Journal of
Aesthetics, 48 (1): 29–44.
 –––, 2009a, “Aesthetics and the Private Realm,” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism,
67 (2): 226–230.
 –––, 2009b, “Aesthetics of the Everyday,” in A Companion to Aesthetics, second ed., Davies,
Stephen, et al, Malden: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 136–139.
 ––– (ed.), forthcoming, Body Aesthetics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 Johnstone, Stephen (ed.), 2008, The Everyday, Cambridge: MIT Press.
 Kaprow, Allan, 1993, Essays on the Blurring of Art and Life, Jeff Kelley (ed.), Berkeley:
University of California Press.
 Kester, Grant H., 2004, Conversation Pieces: Community and Communication in Modern
Art, Berkeley: University of California Press.
 –––, 2011, The One and the Many: Contemporary Collaborative Art in a Global Context,
Durham: Duke University Press.
 Korsmeyer, Carolyn, 1999, Making Sense of Taste: Food and Philosophy, Ithaca: Cornell
University Press.
 –––, 2005, The Taste Culture Reader: Experiencing Food and Drink, Oxford: Berg.
 Kupfer, Joseph, 1983, Experience as Art: Aesthetics in Everyday Life, Albany: SUNY Press,
1983.
 Lafebvre, Henri, 1991, Critique of Everyday Life, John Moore (tr.), London: Verso.
 Leddy, Thomas, 1995, “Everyday Surface Aesthetic Qualities: ‘Neat,’ ‘Messy,’ ‘Clean,’
‘Dirty’,” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 53 (3): 259–268.
 –––, 1997, “Sparkle and Shine,” British Journal of Aesthetics, 37 (3): 259–273.
 –––, 2005, “The Nature of Everyday Aesthetics,” in Andrew Light and Jonathan M. Smith
(eds.), The Aesthetics of Everyday Life, New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 3–22.
 –––, 2008, “The Aesthetics of Junkyards and Roadside Clutter,” Contemporary Aesthetics, 6.
[available online]
 –––, 2012a, The Extraordinary in the Ordinary: the Aesthetics of Everyday Life,
Peterborough: Broadview Press.
 –––, 2012b, “Defending Everyday Aesthetics and the Concept of ‘Pretty’,” Contemporary
Aesthetics, 10. [available online]
 –––, 2015 (forthcoming), “The Experience of Awe: An Expansive Approach to Everyday
Aesthetics,” Contemporary Aesthetics, 13
 Lee, Jessica, 2010, “Home Life: Cultivating a Domestic
Aesthetic.” Contemporary Aesthetics, 8. [available online]
 Leonhardt, Gay, 1985, “An Eye for Peeling Paint,” Landscape, 28 (2): 23–25.
 Light, Andrew and Jonathan M. Smith, (eds.), 2005, The Aesthetics of Everyday Life, New
York: Columbia University Press.
 Linstead, Stephen, & Heather Höpfl (eds.), 2000, The Aesthetics of Organization, London:
SAGE Publications.
 Lintott, Sheila, 2003, “Sublime Hunger: a Consideration of Eating Disorders beyond
Beauty,” Hypatia, 18 (4): 65–86.
 –––, 2012, “The Sublimity of Gestating and Giving Birth: Toward a Feminist Conception of
the Sublime,” in Sheila Lintott and Maureen Sander-Staudt (eds.), Philosophical Inquiries
Into Pregnancy, Childbirth, and Mothering: Maternal Subjects, New York: Routledge, pp.
237–250.
 Lopes, Dominic McIver, 2014, Beyond Art, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 Lynes, Russell, 1985, “Kudos for Clutter,” Architectural Digest, 41 (3): 34–38.
 Mandoki, Katya, 2007, Everyday Aesthetics: Prosaics, the Play of Culture and Social
Identities, Aldershot, Hampshire: Ashgate.
 Martin, Lois, 2004, “Patina of Cloth,” Surface Design Journal, 28 (4): 16–21.
 Maskit, Jonathan, 2011, “The Aesthetics of Elsewhere: An Environmentalist Everyday
Aesthetics,” Aesthetic Pathways, 1 (2): 92–107.
 Maxwell, Robert, 1993, Sweet Disorder and the Carefully Careless: Theory and Criticism in
Architecture, New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
 McCracken, Janet, 2001, Taste and the Household: The Domestic Aesthetics and Moral
Reasoning, Albany: SUNY Press.
 Melchionne, Kevin, 1998, “Living in Glass Houses: Domesticity, Interior Decoration, and
Environmental Aesthetics,” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 56 (2): 191–200.
 –––, 2011, “Aesthetic Experience in Everyday Life: A Reply to Dowling,” British Journal of
Aesthetics, 51 (4): 437–442.
 –––, 2013, “The Definition of Everyday Aesthetics.” Contemporary Aesthetics, 11.
[available online]
 –––, 2014, “The Point of Everyday Aesthetics,” Contemporary Aesthetics, 12. [available
online]
 Miyahara, Kojiro, 2014, “Exploring Social Aesthetics: Aesthetic Appreciation as a Method
for Qualitative Sociology and Social Research,” International Journal of Japanese
Sociology, 23 (1): 63–79.
 Mollar, Dan, 2014, “The Boring,” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 72 (2): 181–
191.
 Moss, Hilary & Desmond O’Neill, 2013, “The Aesthetic and Cultural Interests of Patients
Attending an Acute Hospital – a Phenomenological Study,” Journal of Advanced Nursing,
Jan 12175: 1–9.
 –––, 2014, “The Art of Medicine: Aesthetic Deprivation in Clinical
Settings,” www.thelancet.com 383: 1032–1033.
 Naukkarinen, Ossi, 1999, Aesthetics of the Unavoidable: Aesthetic Variations in Human
Appearance, Saarijärvi: Gummerus Kirjapaino Oy.
 –––, 2013, “What is ‘Everyday’ in Everyday Aesthetics?” Contemporary Aesthetics, 11.
[available online]
 Naukkarinen, Ossi, and Arto Haapala (eds.), 2005, Aesthetics and Mobility Special Volume 1
of Contemporary Aesthetics. [available online]
 Naukkarinen, Ossi and Yuriko Saito (eds.), 2012, Artification, Special Volume 4
of Contemporary Aesthetics. [available online]
 Ngai, Sianne, 2012, Our Aesthetic Categories: Zany, Cute, Interesting, Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
 Norman, Donald A., 1990, The Design of Everyday Things, New York: Doubleday.
 –––, 2004, Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things, New York: Basic
Books.
 Novitz, David, 1992, The Boundaries of Art: A Philosophical Inquiry into the Place of Art in
Everyday Life, Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
 Orr, David, 2002, The Nature of Design: Ecology, Culture, and Human Intention, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
 Pallasmaa, Juhani, 1999, “Toward an Architecture of Humility,” Harvard Design Magazine,
Winter/Spring 1999: 22–25.
 –––, 2005, The Eyes of the Skin: Architecture and the Senses, Chichester: Wiley-Academy.
 Papanek, Victor, 1992, Design for the Real World: Human Ecology and Social Change,
Chicago: Academy Chicago Publishers.
 –––, 1995, The Green Imperative: Natural Design for the Real World, New York: Thames
and Hudson.
 Parsons, Glenn and Allen Carlson, 2008, Functional Beauty, Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
 Paulson, Ronald, 1996, The Beautiful, Novel, and Strange: Aesthetics and Heterodoxy,
Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
 Pearson, David, 1991, “Making Sense of Architecture,” Architectural Review, 1136: 68–70.
 Pine, B. Joseph II, and James H. Gilmore, 1998, “Welcome to the Experience
Economy,” Harvard Business Review, July-August 1998: 97–105.
 Postrel, Virginia, 2003, The Substance of Style: How the Rise of Aesthetic Value is Remaking
Commerce, Culture, & Consciousness, New York. 2003.
 –––, 2013, The Power of Glamour: Longing and the Art of Visual Persuasion, New York:
Simon & Schuster.
 Prose, Francine, 1999, “A Dirty Tablecloth, Deconstructed,” ARTnews, 98 (9): 126–127.
 Puolakka, Kalle, 2014, “Dewey and Everyday Aesthetics - A New Look,” Contemporary
Aesthetics, 12. [available online]
 –––, forthcoming,“The Aesthetic Pulse of the Everyday: Defending Dewey,” Contemporary
Aesthetics, 13.
 Rader, Melvin, and Bertram Jessup, 1976, Art and Human Values, Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice-Hall.
 Rancière, Jacques, 2009, Aesthetics and its Discontents, Steven Corcoran (tr.), Cambridge:
Polity Press.
 Ratiu, Dan-Eugen, 2012, “Remapping the Realm of Aesthetics: On Recent Controversies
about the Aesthetic and the Aesthetic Experience in Everyday Life,” Proceedings of the
European Society for Aesthetics, 4: 385–411.
 Rautio, Pauliina, 2009, “On Hanging Laundry: the Place of Beauty in Managing Everyday
Life,” Contemporary Aesthetics, 7. [available online]
 Rhode, Deborah L., 2010, Beauty Bias: the Injustice of Appearance in Life and Law, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
 Roberdeau, Wood, 2011, “Affirming Difference: Everyday Aesthetic Experience after
Phenomenology,” Contemporary Aesthetics, 9. [available online]
 Saito, Yuriko, 2001, “Everyday Aesthetics,” Philosophy and Literature, 25 (1): 87–95.
 –––, 2004 “Machines in the Ocean: The Aesthetics of Wind Farms,” Contemporary
Aesthetics, 2. [available online]
 –––, 2007, Everyday Aesthetics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 –––, 2010, “Future Directions for Environmental Aesthetics,” Environmental Values, 19 (3):
373–391, reprinted in Martin Drenthen and Jozef Geulartz (eds.), Environmental Aesthetics:
Crossing Divides and Breaking Ground, New York: Fordham University Press, 2014, pp.
25–40.
 –––, 2012, “Everyday Aesthetics and World-Making,” Contrastes: Revista Internacional de
Filosofia, Supplemento 17: 255–274.
 –––, 2014, “Everyday Aesthetics,” in Encyclopedia of Aesthetics, Michael Kelly (ed.),
second edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, second vol. pp. 525–529.
 –––, forthcoming, “Body Aesthetics and Cultivation of Moral Virtues,” in Body Aesthetics,
Sherri Irvin (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 Sartwell, Crispen, 2003, “Aesthetics of the Everyday,” in The Oxford Handbook of
Aesthetics, Jerrold Levinson (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 761–770.
 –––, 2004, Six Names of Beauty, New York: Routledge.
 –––, 2010, Political Aesthetics, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
 Scarry, Elaine, 1999, On Beauty and Being Just, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
 Schor, Juliet B, 2002, “Cleaning the Closet: Toward a New Fashion Ethic,” in Juliet B. Schor
and Betsy Taylor (eds.), Sustainable Planet: Solutions for the Twenty-first Century, Boston:
Beacon Press, pp. 45–60.
 Scruton, Roger, 2011, Beauty: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 Sepänmaa, Yrjö, 1995a, “Aesthetics in Practice: Prolegomenon,” in Practical Aesthetics in
Practice and in Theory, Marti Honkanen (ed.), Helsinki: University of Helsinki, pp. 13–17.
 –––, 1995b, “The Utilization of Environmental Aesthetics,” in Real World Design: The
Foundation and Practice of Environmental Aesthetics, Yrjö Sepänmaa (ed.), Helsinki:
University of Helsinki, pp. 7–10.
 Shusterman, Richard, 1992, Pragmatist Aesthetics: Living Beauty, Rethinking Art, Oxford:
Blackwell.
 –––, 1999, “Somaesthetics: a Disciplinary Proposal,” Journal of Aesthetics & Art Criticism,
57 (3): 299–313.
 –––, 2006, “Aesthetic Experience: From Analysis to Eros,” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art
Criticism, 64 (2): 217–229.
 –––, 2013, “Everyday Aesthetics of Embodiment,” in Rethinking Aesthetics: The Role of
Body in Design, Ritu Bhatt (ed.), New York: Routledge.
 Soucek, Brian, 2009, “Resisting the Itch to Redefine Aesthetics: A Response to Sherri
Irvin,” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 67 (2): 223–226.
 Spaid, Sue, 2002, Ecovention: Current Art to Transform Ecologies, Cincinnati: The
Contemporary Arts Center.
 –––, 2012, Green Acres: Artists Farming Fields, Greenhouses and Abandoned Lots,
Cincinnati: Contemporary Arts Center.
 Sparke, Penny, 1995, As Long as It’s Pink: The Sexual Politics in Taste, New York:
HarperCollins.
 Spelman, Elizabeth, 2002, Repair: The Impulse to Restore in a Fragile World, Boston:
Beacon Press.
 Stabb, Jo Ann, 2002, “Transformations: Trash to Art,” Surface Design Journal, 26 (2): 14–
19.
 Stolnitz, Jerome, 1969, “The Aesthetic Attitude,” in Introductory Readings in Aesthetics,
John Hospers (ed.), New York: The Free Press, pp. 17–27.
 –––, 1977, “On the Origins of ‘Aesthetic Disinterestedness’,” in George Dickie and R. J.
Sclafani (eds.), Aesthetics: A Critical Anthology, New York: St. Martin’s Press, pp. 607–625.
 Tavin, Kevin, 2007, “Eyes Wide Shut: The Use and Uselessness of the Discourse of
Aesthetics in Art Education,” Art Education, March 2007: 40–45.
 Taylor, Nigel, 2000, “Ethical Arguments about the Aesthetics of Architecture,” in Ethics and
the Built Environment, Warwick Fox (ed.), London: Routledge, pp. 193–206.
 Tuan, Yi-Fu, 1974, Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes, and Values,
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
 –––, 1984, Dominance & Affection: The Making of Pets, New Haven: Yale University Press.
 –––, 1993, Passing Strange and Wonderful: Aesthetics, Nature, and Culture, Washington, D.
C.: Island Press.
 Vihma, Susann, 2012, “Artification for Well-Being: Institutional Living as a Special Case,”
in Ossi Naukkarinen and Yuriko Saito (eds.), Artification, Special Volume 4
of Contemporary Aesthetics. [available online]
 Visser, Margaret, 1997, The Way We Are: Astonishing Anthropology of Everyday Life, New
York: Kodansha International.
 Walker, Stuart, 1995, “The Environment, Product Aesthetics and Surfaces,” Design Issues,
11 (3): 15–27.
 Welsch, Wolfgang, 1997, Undoing Aesthetics, Andrew Inkpin (tr.), London: SAGE
Publications.
 Whiteley, Nigel, 1993, Design for Society, London: Reaktion Books.
 –––, 1999, “Utility, Design Principles and the Ethical Tradition,” in Utility Reassessed: The
Role of Ethics in the Practice of Design, Judy Attfield, (ed.), Manchester: Manchester
University Press, pp. 190–202.
 Witherspoon, Gary, 1996, “Navajo Aesthetics: Beautifying the World through Art,”
in Aesthetics in Perspective, Kathleen M. Higgins (ed.), Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College
Publishers, pp. 736–742.
 Yuedi, Liu and Curtis L. Carter (eds.), 2014, Aesthetics of Everyday Life: East and West,
Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
 Zande, Robin, 2007, “Chairs, Cars, and Bridges: Teaching Aesthetics from the
Everyday,” Art Education, 60 (1): 39–42.
 Ziff, Paul, 1997, “Anything Viewed,” in Susan L. Feagin and Patrick Maynard (eds.), Oxford
Readers: Aesthetics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 23–30.

Academic Tools
How to cite this entry.
Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society.
Look up this entry topic at the Indiana Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO).
Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers, with links to its database.

Other Internet Resources

 Aesthetics Today, blog
 Ambiances, International Journal of Sensory Environment, Architecture and Urban
Space
 Contemporary Aesthetics, online journal
  Evental Aesthetics, online journal

Related Entries
aesthetics: aesthetic judgment | aesthetics: environmental | art, definition of | Dewey, John:
aesthetics | Japanese Philosophy: aesthetics | Kant, Immanuel: aesthetics and teleology