A Deweyan Approach to the Dilemma of Everyday Aesthetics

Abstract

Drawing on Dewey's anti-dualist stance, I argued for a continuity between the aesthetics of everyday life and the aesthetics of art. In course of my discussion, I question such dichotomies as that between the practical and the aesthetic, the ordinary and the extraordinary, and disinterestedness vs. engagement. In my view, the dilemma is only real for those who wish to maintain relatively rigid distinctions within these dichotomies. The dilemma is only a dilemma if you think there is something disturbing about the thought that low-level aesthetic experiences are enhanced when attended to and when understood or appreciated differently by way of the arts.

Everyday Aesthetics and Attractiveness of the University Campus

“…The aestheticization of the campus enhances its attractiveness and improves its education environment [5]. This attractiveness exerts an important effect on the students to decide where to meet and entertain, what activities to do and how, their social behavior and interaction, and their sport activity [4]. attractiveness strongly affects the students' attitude towards the university and their sense of belonging [31].…”

“…Aesthetics of the everyday life [1] or everyday aesthetics (EA) [2] appeared at the turn of the 21 st century as a sub-discipline of aesthetics that made a shift in aesthetics thinking towards the objects and practices of everyday life [3][4][5]. It has been the subject matter of fierce arguments among aestheticians in the last decades.…”

“…But at the same time, EA also does not ignore the extraordinariness in these objectives and values. It keeps a continuous and dynamic relationship between the two [4].…”

Aecsthetic transformative experience. A pragmatist outline

“…As it is well known, Dewey refuses to draw clear boundaries between aesthetic, intellectual, practical or emotional components in experiences (see e.g. Johnson 2007) or between ordinary and extraordinary aesthetic experiences (Leddy 2021; see also Dewey 1925/2008. The separation of the realm of the aesthetics from other spheres of human (and nonhuman) interaction is socially conditioned: it is the product of a modern, industrialized society divided into antagonist classesmore precisely, into a working class that produces but cannot consume, or cannot enjoy what it can consume, and a capitalist, dominant class, that consumes and enjoys products it does not produce (Dewey 1934(Dewey /2008264-268;345-347) 19 In a society in which everyday life, at least the life of the oppressed classes, is deprived of any aesthetic pleasure, experience 'is often infected with apathy, lassitude and stereotype.…”

Dewey’s and Pareyson’s Aesthetics

“…This kind of aesthetic experience may be in strong contrast with ordinary existence, especially for people who have little direct experience of great artworks, so rendering everyday life more boring and dull. Thomas Leddy offers an interesting contribution to solving the dilemma of the opposition ordinary-extraordinary through a reference to Dewey's antidualistic stance (Leddy 2021). happy encounters […] reveal themselves to each other," it is therefore possible to have Dewey's aesthetics and Pareyson's dialogue with each other, highlighting their affinities.…”