About CA
Contact CA

Search Journal

Editorial Board

Permission to Reprint


Site Map


What is 'Everyday' in Everyday Aesthetics?

  Ossi Naukkarinen

The theme of everyday aesthetics has recently been addressed by numerous authors.  However, the question of what is actually the nature of the everyday, as contrasted with the non-everyday and how this nature affects the aesthetics of the everyday has not been sufficiently elaborated.  The purpose of this essay is to clarify the everydayness of the everyday and combine the general notion of everydayness with the key points of everyday aesthetics.

Key Words
everyday aesthetics, everydayness, Leddy, Melchionne, Saito

1.  Introduction

In his article “The Definition of Everyday Aesthetics,” published in Volume 11 of Contemporary Aesthetics, Kevin Melchionne takes up an important issue.  While the concept of everyday aesthetics has recently been addressed by more and more authors and the theme has essentially developed into a sub-discipline of its own, the question of what specifically defines the nature of the everyday,  as contrasted with the non-everyday,  and how this nature affects the aesthetics of our everyday life remains insufficiently elaborated.[1] In his words:  “Yet the range of objects or practices that one finds under the rubric everyday can seem arbitrary and this calls for a definition of the everyday.”[2] Moreover, it is not useful to see the everyday in the framework of academic aesthetics as “a default third basket for what is not comfortably categorized as fine art or natural beauty.”[3]This means that everyday aesthetics should not be defined as the aesthetics of everything that is not fine art or of the natural environment, as sometimes has been suggested.[4]

Melchionne briefly introduces some promising points, however he disregards still others that would be useful in moving the discussion forward.  The aim of this essay is to take this next step, and this will be done with the help of a graphic presentation of the issues at hand.  Although not intended to represent a complete coverage of the topic, the figure nevertheless summarizes some of the central aspects important for understanding what the everyday is.  The verbal analysis following it explains the details of the image and connects the general remarks on the everyday with its aesthetic aspects.  The figure will be useful for dealing with the nature of the everyday in various contexts, even if the focus of this essay is on everyday aesthetics in particular.   

The aspects of the everyday summarized by the figure are not necessarily completely neglected by other authors addressing everydayness.  For example, Yuriko Saito touches on some of them in her book Everyday Aesthetics.  Yet it is typical to scatter the notions in different parts of texts, which makes it difficult for the reader to form an overview of the issue.  This is what the figure and its analysis seek to help.

The figure looks like this:


2.  My everyday now

The kernel of the figure, the red area, represents the starting point encompassing the basic precepts that  first, every one of us has his or her everyday life; second, it is necessarily his or her own; and third, the contents of it change over time.

Everyday life is the unavoidable basis on which everything else is built.  Life without everydayness is practically impossible, and it is difficult to even imagine a life that would be completely non-everyday-like.  We may lack some other fields or aspects of life, but not the everyday except in some very special cases that I will explore later.[5]

My everyday consists of certain objects, activities, and events, as well as certain attitudes and relations to them. Everyday objects, activities, and events, for me and for others, are those with which we spend lots of time, regularly and repeatedly.  Most often this means objects and events related to our work, home, and hobbies.  It is quite possible that my everyday is largely similar to someone else’s.  As a professional academic, I spend a large part of my day on my computer, working with various sorts of texts, and in meetings and classrooms.  In my free time, I like to do sports, cook, meet my friends, listen to music, and read novels, but I also have to take care of chores that I don’t really enjoy, such as shopping and cleaning. I happen to experience these things in a country that has four distinct seasons of the year and a democratic political system, which also strongly affect my daily life.  I assume that I share these things with many others, especially with other academics living in similar weather and political conditions.[6]  On the other hand, my everyday life is probably rather different from that of a Mexican nurse, a Nigerian drug dealer, or a cook from Bhutan.

Nevertheless, it is important to bear in mind that no single set of objects, activities, or events as such constitutes one’s everyday, and that there is a large degree of variation in the makeup of such sets depending on a person’s way of life.  Even if cars, kitchen utensils, clothes, and furniture form a core part of most people’s everyday, it is still very important to think about the relation or attitude we have to them.  Melchionne points out that “There are five main areas of consideration:  food, wardrobe, dwelling, conviviality, and going out.  Nearly all of us eat, dress, dwell someplace, socialize, and go out into the world for work or errands on a nearly daily basis.”[7]  He is right in saying that these are typical “everyday areas” and even ones that often call for aesthetic consideration.  But simply listing them does not explain why and how they are of everyday kind.  What is their everydayness?  Melchionne hints at an explanation but the issue deserves deeper exploration.

The everyday attitude is colored with routines, familiarity, continuity, normalcy, habits, the slow process of acclimatization, even superficiality and a sort of half-consciousness  and not with creative experiments, exceptions, constant questioning and change, analyses, and deep reflections.  In our daily lives we aim at control and balance.  The everyday is the area of our life that we want and typically can trust, the sphere of life that we know very well; or at least believe that we do, which is normally enough to keep us contented.  Everyday life is not always only made up of the nice and good, but is still something we are familiar with.  Melchionne also refers to this characteristic:  "In contrast [to seasonal or life-cycle events, requiring complex planning and big decisions], everyday life is marked by an economy of effort, a minimum of planning, and the easy integration of the aesthetic into routines with amendments and variations along the way."[8]  In my case, it means that I know my home, its surroundings and my workplace quite well, and that many things I do in these contexts are easy and obvious for me.  There are lots of things that I don’t have to pay much attention to but can perform almost automatically.  The positive power of habits, which has been noted repeatedly in philosophical pragmatism, is another variation on the theme.[9]  All this can also naturally lead to downright lazy thinking, as Daniel Kahneman illustrates from the point of view of psychology in his best-seller Thinking, Fast and Slow.[10]  Trying to find the easiest and least demanding solution is simply one central operative principle of human behavior.  The diverse psychological and biological backgrounds of this tendency, analyzed by Kahneman, cannot be addressed in this essay.

Moreover, no one else has exactly the same everyday as I do and no one else could live his or her life in quite the same way, even if I share some strands of the world with others.  This also means that I can have experience-based knowledge only of my own everyday.  I have to build an everyday relation with things around me; no one else can do it for me and no objects or events act in an exactly similar manner for anyone else.  My everyday right now is a special kind of relationship between me and my surroundings.

This, of course, does not mean that I lead a completely “monadic” life.  As human beings we are social creatures, and although I have my own life I live it with others.  How I interact with people around me:  relatives, family members, friends, foes, colleagues, has a strong impact on me, just as I also affect others; in fact, it forms me into what I am.  Hermits are rare exceptions, and their being alone, in turn, shapes them into what they are. Furthermore, this interactive relationship does not only happen between me and other people; I also interact with objects, materials, and processes, and all this results in what I am and what my life is.  My life is not mine alone and there are no clear-cut and definite borders between me and the rest of the world.

If we don’t achieve a normal or routine relation with some issues in our lives, or if we don’t want that, these objects, events, actions, habits, skills, etc. are not really in the kernel of our everyday.  For example, people who move to a new country or to a foreign culture may find it very hard to adopt strange habits and thus establish a smooth everyday life.  In an extreme case it can happen for various reasons that one’s daily life is full of anxiety and despair.  In this case, if most of one’s time is spent in this emotional landscape, it is not possible to get used to it and to the things that cause it, and to then be able to form routines that can carry one further almost half-consciously.  In such cases one probably cannot say that such people have an everyday life in the same sense as most of us.  They live in a crisis.  They have their daily life but without the routines, easiness, and trust that normally belong to everydayness.

One’s everyday can be more or less positive or negative, aesthetically or otherwise, but independently of its nature it changes with time.  My everyday now is somewhat different from what  it was a year ago.  This change is partly intentional and controlled, partly not.  But it must be emphasized that the change has particularly to do with objects, actions and events, and not that much to do with the everyday attitude that, in the end, constitutes the everyday.  In youth one’s living is filled with play and toys, later with something completely different.  However, everydayness remains on the level of the relationship itself: whatever is routine and normal can be a part of our everyday, be that play and toys, fixing a car, or sports.  Of course, in some lives the constellation of objects, actions, and events may remain rather stable for long periods of time, but this is not necessary for everydayness to continue.

Although I emphasize the present tense in the figure, the now of my everyday, it is clear that the past and the future influence all that there now is.  I have memories and plans and my past deeds have forged me into what I am.  My present experiences are what I now have, continuously and always, but they can be seen as condensed points or prisms of my whole life span, or even of much longer cultural and nature-based processes.  The present oozes what there was and what we believe will be. 

3.  Aspiring out, sudden and slow

Most of us don’t want to have the routine on all the time, to just continue living the everyday.  There are also non-routine things that we want to experience.  This is represented by the upper and right areas of the figure entitled “Aspire.”  Such non-routine things are considered positive breaks in or alternatives to the everyday.

Some of these positive breaks can be achieved quite quickly. Parties are a good example of this.  They are something non-everyday by definition, and it is possible to start one very easily:  ask some friends to join you, turn on the music and open a bottle of champagne.  But if we partied all the time, and always in the same way, it would become routine.  Parties and festivals are supposed to be breaks in the routine.  They are exceptions, occasions when we do other things than the normal.  The same can be true of holidays and, sometimes, business trips and activities related to our hobbies.  The key ideas of John Dewey’s and Thomas Leddy’s aesthetics also refer to the direction of rather special experiences that rise above the normal stream of daily life, although without being in stark contrast with it.  This extraordinary nature of Deweyan experiences is the reason why Yuriko Saito, for example, questions whether focusing on such experiences can really help us understand the everydayness of everyday aesthetics.  In any case such experiences, too, can come about rather suddenly.

One can also try to escape from routine and boredom in other, slower ways.  This often means a process of developing ourselves, widening our horizons, or learning something new, which can be very demanding.  Studying arts, sciences, or sports are examples of this.  In such processes we have to concentrate, make a conscious effort, question the routines, analyze, reflect, and get creative.  But as soon as new things become more familiar to us, they can become a part of our everyday; this happens when we are learning a new language and eventually begin to master it. This can be compared with the process of consciously acquiring a new taste for art.[11]

We can also sometimes de-familiarize ourselves with the things that are normal to us, when we start to reflect upon and analyze them in a different way.  This happens, for example, when we try to change our diet.  Here, the point is to de-familiarize ourselves with an old habit and develop a new one.  A diet won’t have a long-term impact if it does not become routine, part of our everyday.

On a more general level, it is possible to think that our every attitudes, habits, and routines actually just conceal the real world and blind us from seeing what is important.  In this case it would be arts, philosophy, and the sciences that could help us overcome the tyranny of this everyday sluggishness.  This has been a standard issue in philosophy since Plato’s allegory of the cave, and many major philosophers, such as Immanuel Kant, Karl Marx, Edmund Husserl, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Martin Heidegger have provided their own ideas about what to do to open our eyes, philosophically, politically, and otherwise.

On the other hand, many philosophers of pragmatism, such as Charles S. Peirce and John Dewey, noted the positive power of everyday habits.  Our habits and normal practices don’t necessarily (only) veil and encrust some kind of “deeper truth” and blind us, but rather give us security and help us act in the world and understand it in the first place.[12]

Art has an interesting role in this picture.  For an artist, many things that are needed for creating art works (materials, tools, spaces, skills) that are part and parcel of his or her everyday life. Similarly, for art critics and researchers art is a fundamental part of the everyday.  However, for many others art functions as a means for opening up new vistas and understanding the world in a fresh and different way, just as sciences can also do.  Arts and sciences typically strive to surpass the typical by questioning and presenting alternatives.  Artworks can also produce extraordinary experiences, like parties do. 

However, again, it is not artworks as such that are of everyday or non-everyday kind.  They can be both depending on our relationship with them.  The same work can be extraordinary for me and something quite familiar to someone else.  For this reason everyday aesthetics cannot be defined by saying that it is the aesthetics of non-art (or non-nature), or that art-related aesthetics is necessarily something that is unsuited for the everyday contexts.  Almost everything can be “artified and art can be turned into everydayness.[13].  That is why the arrows in the figure point in two directions and why there are no sharp borders between the areas presented.  The relationship between the everyday and non-everyday is dynamic, quite like the relationship between art and non-art:  they affect each other – quite independently of whether a particular case of art is, for someone, part of her everyday or non-everyday.

Conceptions vary on whether the “beyond the everyday” that art offers is at all comparable with that of the sciences, whether art really opens up anything about reality or, rather, construes a fictional reality of its own.  Furthermore, extreme skeptics may also ask whether the sciences can achieve anything other than a fictional conception of reality.  Nevertheless, even such extremists can probably see the difference between the everyday and its alternatives.  I would claim that even the most radical thinkers have aspects of everydayness in their lives, their own habits and routines; Kant, who was known for his extremely punctual daily routines, may be a good example of this.

4.  Falling out, sudden and slow

Aesthetics has been typically interested in positive breaks with the everyday, such as the ones described above, achieved with the help of art or otherwise.  Both art and aesthetic value at large can even be defined as something that is positively extraordinary.  Still, there are also other kinds of breaks in the everyday.  Not all changes are positive, but there are non-routine things that we don’t want to experience; these are represented in the figure by the area entitled “Avoid.”

Again, some of them can come about quite suddenly, literally in seconds.  We can get into a car accident, our home may burn down, or our loved one can tell us that she is leaving.  Incidents like this disturb and can even destroy our everyday life.  We cannot go on doing things we are used to and sometimes have to learn new skills.  Sometimes we can get used to changes caused by such events, and if this happens the new situation becomes a part of our everyday.  However, before habituation happens we are experiencing a negative break.  Typically, such incidents happen without our will and control, originated by outside forces.  This means that they are not optional, like things we consciously and willingly pursue, even if some positive breaks can also just happen to us, such as nice surprises, without our conscious intent.

We can also slowly end up leading a boring and stagnant life that is not positively balanced and controlled but simply dispiriting, or we can gradually develop a terminal illness.  In such cases the everyday is nothing reliable, safe, supportive and trustworthy but restrictive, tiring, prison-like and without a prospect for alternatives, a mental and even physical halt.  Such a life is often called gray, and while it may require all our attention and energy, we cannot have a routine and easy-going attitude towards it.  In the worst cases this leads to a diagnosed depression or to some other form of mental and social disability.

Political activists sometimes claim, in the spirit of situationists, that we don’t necessarily even realize that we are being stupefied like this; that we believe ourselves to have a normal everyday life but that actually we are somehow stagnated.  This is again close to what Plato meant by his allegory of the cave.  However, I would claim that this is different from a situation where someone understands her stagnation very well and suffers from it, and thus cannot lead a normal everyday life.  People in Plato’s cave do not understand their situation and can, in principle, live happily.

5.  The limits of my life

All the things described above, balanced everyday life as well as its positive and negative breaks, sudden or slow, are still parts of our conscious life.  The size and contents of this area vary between different individuals and with each individual’s life situations.  However, all of us have limits to what we can know and experience.  The rest of the world is outside these blurry limits, and in the figure these limits are represented by the outer dotted line.

A part of what is outside our own world consists of things we have never encountered and know nothing of.  By definition, I cannot name an example of things that are of that kind for me. Yet I know that most people in the world have no idea of, say, who Eija Lindström (my sister) is although I know her well.  It is quite normal to widen the scope of our conscious world, and that is exactly what we do as we grow older and learn new things. Some of these novel things become parts of our everyday, others remain more exceptional.  Sometimes things just enter into our consciousness quite suddenly:  the rare occasion of a meteor hitting our house! 

On the other hand, there are things, everyday or otherwise, that have played a role in our lives at some point but we have forgotten about them.  Most adults have probably forgotten lots of things that were dear to them in their childhood.  Some of the things that we are not aware of affect our lives strongly, some not at all.  Physicists assume that something they call dark matter and dark energy exist.  If they do, they must have had a quite central impact on our lives as long as human beings have existed, even if no one knew anything about them before our days.  Or somewhat more understandably, an economic recession may affect a child’s life even if he doesn’t know it.  On the other hand, things that happen right now on the streets of a small town somewhere in Brazil don’t affect my life and I will never even know about them.  They don’t exist for me.

6.  Aesthetics of the everyday

All or at least most of us have our own everyday in the sense described above, normally partly shared with some others.  It is unavoidable.  Many probably have their own everyday aesthetics, too, although I assume that there are also people who simply don’t pay much attention to aesthetic issues and thus have no extended aesthetic experiences in their lives.  This, of course, does not mean that they would not do and make things that others could evaluate aesthetically if they wanted to.  We cannot avoid producing aesthetic objects and events of some kind even if we ourselves don’t always intend it or notice the outcome.

I would think that in principle whatever belongs to our everyday can be approached aesthetically or from the aesthetic point of view.  It is possible to evaluate anything aesthetically, although it is by no means always necessary.  Often we can choose our point of view.  If we approach something aesthetically, we typically pay attention to such issues as appearance, feel, look, touch, sound, and other perceivable qualities of the things we encounter and interact with:  their emotional and sensory aspects.  As Melchionne says, it is quite common to adopt such an approach in the context of the most typical everyday chores that have to do with food, wardrobe, dwelling, conviviality, and going out.  But one’s everyday can consist of some other kinds of things in addition to these, and whatever they are they can be approached aesthetically.

Some people, of course, emphasize that aesthetic approaches fairly often are, or at least should be, colored by artistic or art-related notions.  The latest carefully developed example of this point of departure that I know of is a book by Laurent Jenny, La vie esthétique.  Jenny interprets various kinds of things in his daily life by drawing connections between them and art forms, such as painting, poetry, and music.[14]  If so, then everyday aesthetics is something that is compared with values and practices developed in the (fine) arts.  Leddy also suggests that the borderline between art and non-art is not tight and that everyday aesthetics would benefit from admitting this.  Saito, in turn, has argued that this might direct our attention to things that are not relevant for everyday aesthetics.  I tend to think that art-related everyday aesthetics is simply another option available for us, not necessarily better or worse as such.  As said before, art and art-relatedness can be an essential part of one’s everyday life.  There is no single best definition of what the aesthetic is; instead, there are several intertwining interpretations as, for example, Wolfgang Welsch has pointed out.[15]  All of them can be relevant to everyday aesthetics.

There are several layers and ways  to develop and express our aesthetic approach to our everyday.  We can simply make choices and do things silently, and still pay attention to aesthetic matters: dress up, clean our house, cook, or drive a car in a certain way. If we do that, others may not even know that we are paying attention to aesthetics even if we did this quite consciously and deliberately and did not content ourselves with easy and unreflective bodily pleasures, for example.  In everyday situations we do not have an obligation to publicly defend our opinions even if we could probably do that if we wished.

We can also openly and verbally discuss aesthetic issues.  When we do this it is normal to use expressions like nice, cool, neat, messy, pretty, awesome, awful, rude, and many others.  I think Leddy is right when he points out that everyday aesthetic vocabulary and its use are often different from art talk.[16]  We can just say that something is neat, and in our everyday settings it is rare to really analyze and give good and deep reasons for our opinions.  If someone goes deeper, at some point the everydayness of the everyday situation gets lost and we eventually enter into a specialist discourse.  This is why specialized analyses and critics of, say, restaurants, wines, cars, or fashion are not really examples of everyday aesthetic discourse, even if they have to do with something other than art and natural environments, i.e., areas that some think constitute the core of everyday aesthetics.  This does not mean that we could not critically discuss our everyday aesthetic choices and opinions or share our ideas,.  Some theorists, such as Christopher Dowling, emphasize that possibilities offered by such discussions, which can come close to art criticism, should not be excluded from everyday aesthetics.[17]  However, claiming that critical discourse must be the paradigmatic way of addressing aesthetic issues in everyday situations would be taking the point too far.

The point of my approach is that should our aesthetic approach really be of an everyday type, we should evaluate and handle things rather routinely, easily and repeatedly, not experimentally, not in atypical and challenging ways, not aiming to broaden our possibilities.  Instead, we should aim at what is normal and non-spectacular to us, at something that does not stick out from the mat of normalcy but supports the routine.  This, in any case, might feel good, safe and satisfying, not simply uninteresting and boring, as Leddy suggests.[18]  Often we share the idea of what is “just right” – not too bad but not too great either – with many others.  This is partly what the “business look,” for example, is all about.  It is based on socially shared and formed tastes.  We gradually learn to discern what is normal, learn to like it, and all this becomes more and more automatic over time.  It may happen that we only really notice our everyday preferences when the normalcy becomes disturbed.  We may, for example, suffer if we for some reason happen to wear different kinds of clothes than others on a certain occasion.

Most of us have our non-everyday aesthetics as well:  a “party look” on the positive side and bad-hair moments and aesthetic catastrophes on the negative, avoidable side.  Some of us may even try to develop our aesthetic life in slow and demanding ways, just like artists or designers do, and some may stagnate aesthetically.  However, those processes move beyond the scope of the everydayness into the realm of extraordinary.

It is another matter to consider which things are aesthetically positive and which are negative to whom and why, both in everyday and non-everyday processes, and I cannot go into that issue here.  In any case, it is by no means self-evident that that we would have universally accepted conceptions of aesthetic positivity and negativity because of the complex reasons that I have tried to analyze elsewhere.[19]  Which things are examples of aesthetic “parties,” “catastrophes,” “stagnations” and “developments,” and which ones are aesthetically good and bad in the everyday, remains a matter of endless dispute.

Everyday aesthetics becomes especially important and influential if a large group of people share similar aesthetic preferences that guide their behavior.  This, I would say, plays a role in the success story of Apple, for example.  It is not unusual to hear that people want to use iPhones, iPads, and other Apple products because they just look better and feel nicer to use than others.  Seen from a somewhat different angle, many political movements can also be claimed to have aesthetic aspects at their core, as Crispin Sartwell has suggested.[20]  Both economic and political spheres offer large-scale examples of cases where certain aesthetic issues have become the normal characteristics of the everyday.  Such everyday mass phenomena leave deep, long lasting and large ecological, economic and aesthetic footprints on different parts of the planet and thus make them worth serious attention.[21] Everyday aesthetics is far from trivial spare-time tinkering, and this is why it is so important to understand what it is.[22]


Ossi Naukkarinen

Ossi Naukkarinen is Vice Dean at the Aalto University School of Arts, Design, and Architecture, Helsinki, Finland.  He has published books and articles, both in English and Finnish, on everyday aesthetics, mobile culture, and environmental and visual arts. 

Published on September 16, 2013.  

*Editor's note:  For further discussion of this topic, see Thomas Leddy's blog Aesthetics Today.


[1] Recent publications that are relevant for the theme include, for example, Arnold Berleant, Sensibility and Sense: The Aesthetic Transformation of the Human World (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2010); see also earlier books by Berleant), Yuriko Saito, Everyday Aesthetics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), Katya Mandoki, Everyday Aesthetics: Prosaics, The Play of Culture and Social Identities (Burlington: Ashgate, 2007), and Thomas Leddy, The Extraordinary in the Ordinary: The Aesthetics of Everyday Life (Broadview Press, 2012).  Other contemporary authors who worked on the theme a bit earlier are, for example, Richard Shusterman, Pragmatist Aesthetics: Living beauty, Rethinking Art (Oxford: Blackwell, 1992, also several other publications by Shusterman), Joseph H. Kupfer, Experience as Art: Aesthetics in Everyday Life (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1983), Wolfgang Welsch,  Ästhetisches Denken (Stuttgart: Reclam, 1990, 7th edition 2010), David Novitz, The Boundaries of Art (Philadelphia, Temple University Press, 1992), and Ossi Naukkarinen, Aesthetics of the Unavoidable (Lahti: International Institute of Applied Aesthetics, 1998).  Still earlier and interesting contributors, in addition to well-known authors such as John Dewey and Charles Baudelaire, were Jean-Marie Guyau, Les problèmes de l'esthétique contemporaine (Paris: F. Alcan, 1884) and Yrjö Hirn, The Origins of Art: A Psychological and Sociological Inquiry (London: MacMillan, 1900).  Unlike it is sometimes claimed, academic research on everyday aesthetics is actually nothing very new.

[2] Kevin Melchionne, ”The Definition of Everyday Aesthetics,” Contemporary Aesthetics, (Vol. 11, 2013), Section 1, “Introduction,”
.  Downloaded on 15 March 2013. 

[3] Ibid.

[4] Here, Melchionne refers to Leddy, The Extraordinary in the Ordinary, pp. 8-9.  Also in his essay “The Nature of Everyday Aesthetics,” in The Aesthetics of Everyday Life, ed. Andrew Light and Jonathan M. Smith (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005), pp. 3-22, ref. on p. 3, Leddy claims that “It would be a mistake to take the term everyday too literally.”  I disagree.

[5] The idea of the everyday developed in this essay can be compared with the concept of Lebenswelt as presented by Edmund Husserl and Jürgen Habermas.  Both concepts refer to something on which other layers of life and culture are built. Especially for Habermas, however, the inter-subjective and communicative aspects of the Lebenswelt are even more strongly accentuated than they are in this essay’s interpretation of the everyday.  A deeper comparison must be left to another occasion. See Edmund Husserl, Die Krisis der europäischen Wissenschaften und die transzendentale Phänomenologie: Eine Einleitung in die phänomenologische Philosophie, Husserliana VI, Hrsg. von W. Biemel (Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff, 1954) and Jürgen Habermas, Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns I-II (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1981).

[6] It would probably be possible to analyze also the concept of culture from the point of view of shared everyday experiences: members of a culture share similar habits and everyday surroundings and experiences.  Such an analysis, however, cannot be developed in this essay.

[7] Melchionne, Section 3, “Conclusion.”

[8] Melchionne, Section 2.

[9] A concise overview on several versions of pragmatism emphasizing this aspect of habits is offered by H. O. Mounce, The Two Pragmatisms: From Peirce to Rorty (London and New York: Routledge, 1997).  A still further, Heideggerian variation on the theme is developed by Arto Haapala in his essay “On the Aesthetics of the Everyday: Familiarity, Strangeness, and the Meaning of Place,” in The Aesthetics of Everyday Life, ed. Andrew Light and Jonathan M. Smith (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005), pp. 39-55.

[10] Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow (London et al.: Penguin Books, 2012).

[11] Melchionne has an interesting essay also on this theme. Kevin Melchionne, “Acquired Taste,” Contemporary Aesthetics, Vol. 5 (2007), 
.  Downloaded on 15 March 2013.

[12] See Mounce.

[13] On 'artification' see Contemporary Aesthetics, Special volume 4 (2012),

[14] Laurent Jenny, La vie esthétique (Lagrasse: Éditions Verdier, 2013).

[15] Wolfgang Welsch, Undoing Aesthetics (London: Sage, 1997).

[16] Thomas Leddy, ”Defending Everyday Aesthetics and the Concept of ’Pretty’” in Contemporary Aesthetics, Vol. 10 (2012),
.  Downloaded on 15 March 2013. See also Leddy’s “The Nature of Everyday Aesthetics” and his “Everyday Surface Aesthetic Qualities: ‘Neat’, ‘Messy’, ‘Clean,’ and ‘Dirty,’” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 53:3 (1995), 259-268.

[17] Christopher Dowling, “The Aesthetics of Daily Life,” The British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol. 50, No. 3, (July 2010), 225-242.

[18] Leddy, The Extraordinary in the Ordinary, p. 111-112.

[19] Ossi Naukkarinen, “Why Beauty Still Cannot Be Measured,” Contemporary Aesthetics, Vol. 8 (2010),

[20] Crispin Sartwell, Political Aesthetics (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2010).

[21] I have compared something that I call ‘aesthetic footprints’ of human activities with other footprints in more detail in my article “Aesthetic Footprints,” Aesthetic Pathways, Vol. 2, No. 1, (December, 2011), 89-111.

[22] I would like to thank Arto Haapala and Yuriko Saito for their comments and wise advice.