2014 | 22 | 3(87) | 125-135
Article title

Struktura estetycznego doświadczenia codzienności

Title variants
The Structure of Everyday Aesthetic Experience
Languages of publication
In the project of everyday aesthetics all elements of daily life, such as sunset, cooking one’s favourite dish, or sitting in a comfortable chair, are a subject of philosophical reflection. According to the proponents of the project (e.g. Yuriko Saito, Sherry Irvin, Ted Leddy), these activities and objects, despite their commonness, have a profoundly aesthetic character. The main goal of this paper is to present and analyze a general structure of the central category of everyday aesthetics — the concept of aesthetic experience. The paper consists of three sections. First, I outline two common understandings of everyday aesthetic experience, introduced by Saito and Irvin. It is shown that despite their novelty they appear to be rather confusing. A major doubt is that they do not clearly show how to distinguish aesthetic pleasures from non-aesthetic pleasures (Irvin) or everyday aesthetic experience from other daily experiences (Saito). As a result, the concept of everyday aesthetic experience turns out to be too broad, and thus it lacks explanatory power. Second, I argue that the categories used by Saito and Irvin to describe everyday aesthetics, although immensely helpful, are not sufficient to capture all phenomena of ordinary life. It is because they only apply to some of the properties which can be recognized as aesthetic in everyday life (e.g. “dirty”), but they say nothing about the very structure of the experience. Therefore, I put forward definitions of certain properties which, in my opinion, adequately describe and individualize experiences characteristic of everyday aesthetics. These are: contingency, repetition, and permeability. Finally, it is highlighted how a reconsidered concept of everyday experience matter to the issues outside the realm of aesthetics. It is revealed that the crucial feature of everyday aesthetic experience is its ambivalence. Our immersion into society, current affairs, and complex relations with other agents force us to make decisions all the time. Each everyday aesthetic judgement requires decision(s) which may be followed by serious consequences (e.g. in socio-economical life). Thus I would contend that judgements in everyday aesthetics are “decision-making” (contrary to traditionally understood aesthetic judgements, which do not require, necessarily, any action in the outer world). In perceiving common things as objects eliciting aesthetic experience, we are always asked to choose which dimension (a set of meanings) of particular experience is crucial for us. The structure of everyday aesthetic experience, as defined above, explains and justifies what we often call (following Saito) “the power of the aesthetic”.
Physical description
  • Instytut Filozofii, Uniwersytet Warszawski, ul. Krakowskie Przedmieście 3, 00-927 Warszawa
  • Bonsdorff P. von (2012), Pending on Art, „Contemporary Aesthetics”, Special Volume 4.
  • Berleant A. (2004), Re-Thinking Aesthetics. Rogue Essays on Aesthetics and the Arts, Aldershot: Ashgate.
  • Dewey J. (1958), Art as Experience, New York (NY): Capricorn Books.
  • Dickie G. (1985), Evaluating Art, „The British Journal of Aesthetics” 1(25), 3-16.
  • Dowling C. (2010), The Aesthetics of Daily Life, „The British Journal of Philosophy” 3(50), 225-242.
  • Gołaszewska M. (1984), Estetyka rzeczywistości, Warszawa: PAX.
  • Gołaszewska M. (1997), Estetyka pięciu zmysłów, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
  • Irvin S. (2008), The Pervasiveness of the Aesthetic in Ordinary Experience, „The British Journal of Aesthetics” 48(1), 29-44.
  • Leddy T. (1995), Everyday Surface Aesthetic Qualities: “Neat”, “Messy”, “Clean”, “Dirty”, „Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism” 3(53), 259-268.
  • Leddy T. (1999), Against Surface Interpretation, „Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism” 4(57), 459-463.
  • Leddy T. (2012), Defending Everyday Aesthetics and the Concept of Pretty, „Contemporary Aesthetics” 10.
  • Levinson J. (1987), Artworks and the Future [w:] Aesthetic Distinction, T. Anderberg, T. Nilsun, I. Persson (red.), Lund: Lund University Press.
  • Mandoki K. (2007), Everyday Aesthetics, Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.
  • Melchionne K. (2011a), Aesthetic Experience in Everyday Life. A Reply to Dowling, „The British Journal of Aesthetics” 51(4), 437-442.
  • Melchionne K. (2011b), A New Problem for Aesthetics, „Contemporary Aesthetics” 9.
  • Melchionne K. (2013), The Definition of Everyday Aesthetics, „Contemporary Aesthetics” 11.
  • Naukkarinen O. (2013), What is “Everyday” in Everyday Aesthetics?, „Contemporary Aesthetics” 11.
  • Ostrowicki M. (1996), Teoria sytuacji estetycznej M. Gołaszewskiej jako fundament estetyki. Dwugłos o pojęciu sytuacji estetycznej Marii Gołaszewskiej, „Edukacja Filozoficzna” 22.
  • Putnam J. (2001), Art and Artifact. The Museum as Medium, Londyn: Thames & Hudson.
  • Quinet M. L. (1981), Food as Art The Problem of Function, „The British Journal of Aethetics” 21(2), 159-171.
  • Saito Y. (2007), Everyday Aesthetics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Saito Y. (2012), Everyday Aesthetics and Artification, „Contemporary Aesthetics” 4.
  • Tatarkiewicz W. (1986), Skupienie i marzenie [w:] O filozofii i sztuce, Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 167-175.
  • Tomasi G. (2012), On Wines as Works of Art, „Rivista di estetica” 52(51), 155-174.
  • Zangwill N. (2001), The Metaphysics of Beauty, New York (NY): Cornell University Press.
  • Zangwill N. (2007), Aesthetic Creation, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Document Type
Publication order reference
YADDA identifier
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.