Arnold Berleant
Professor (Emeritus) of Philosophy at Long Island University and Past President of the International Association of Aesthetics
I Introduction
Recent decades have witnessed a dramatic broadening in the scope of aesthetic
inquiry. No longer focused exclusively on the arts and natural beauty,
the mainstream of aesthetics has entered a delta in which its flow has spread
out into many channels before entering the oceanic expanse that is Western
civilization. Several decades ago, environmental aesthetics began to
attract interest and has grown to be an important focus of present-day inquiry
in aesthetics. Along with environmental ethics, it has become part of the
broader range of environmental studies and the environmental movement in
general. This expansion has continued, interpreting environment not only
as natural but also as social. Aesthetics has been applied to social
relations and political uses, and now, most recently to the objects and
situations of everyday life. The course of the arts has displayed a
similar succession of changes over the past century and a half, increasingly
rejecting traditional paradigms of representation and incorporating into their
subject-matter and practices the everyday world, along with active
participation by their audience. It would seem that art has overstepped
all boundaries, boundaries between art and non-art, between artist and
perceiver, between art and life. Some might say that it has lost its
identity entirely.
Scholars committed to the study of the fine arts and traditional forms of natural
beauty may consider this enlargement of the arts and extension of aesthetics a
corruption of the traditional standards of those endeavors. This, of
course, ignores the fact that, as an area of scholarship, aesthetics is of
comparatively recent origin, only beginning with Baumgarten’s Aesthetica in 1750. Less dogmatic scholars may
take these changes as worth inquiry in their own right, perhaps signifying a
change in the condition of aesthetics. I should like the follow the second
course here, for I think that these developments reflect not only greater
inclusiveness but a fundamental alteration in the nature of aesthetic
inquiry. Put most directly and succinctly, this expansion changes the
field of aesthetics from an aesthetics of objects to an aesthetics of
experience, an aesthetics of sensibility. This essay proposes an account
of how this has come about and what it signifies.
II. The transformations of art
Developments in the visual arts since the late nineteenth century display a fascinating
succession of movements and styles. Among the most notable movements are
Impressionism, Post-impressionism, Fauvism, Expressionism, Cubism, Futurism,
Surrealism, Dada, Abstract Art, Pop Art, Op Art, and Conceptual
Art. These have provided a surprising array of treasures for the
museum-goer and rich material for the art historian. The changes seem to
puzzle the mind much as they dazzle the eye, posing seemingly bizarre
innovations that present insoluble obstacles to efforts at understanding the meaning
of modern art and frustrating attempts at determining its boundaries.
This history is, however, more than a series of changes in style, and these
changes display more than degrees and variations in representation and
abstraction. Let us look more closely at this succession of movements to
see if there is some underlying logic to their sequence.
Impressionism , to begin, is usually explained as an attempt at capturing the
fleeting effects of light, especially sunlight, on objects and landscapes.
Things seem to lose their solidity and appear to vibrate with solar
energy, dissolving into vaguely-defined, multi-colored hues as the atmosphere
is charged by sunlight. With Post-impressionism , objects regained
solidity and radiated a strong presence, while Fauvism flourished with
untamed brushwork and intense hues. In Expressionism objects were colored
in the rich tones of powerful emotion, but this was then replaced by the
dissolution of solidity into the geometrical structures of Cubism , sometimes
broken up into their parts, rendered multi-perspectivally, or made transparent
by displaying their inner structure. Futurism, in contrast, transmuted
the solidity of objects into the disconcerting dynamism of frenetic
motion. With the iconoclasm of Dada, ridicule was cast at the once noble
objects of artistic idealization and bourgeois contentment by introducing the
prosaic and irreverent into the sanctorum of art, while Surrealism
transformed the world of ordinary objects into the bizarre distortions
and irrational juxtapositions of dreams.
As the visual arts became emancipated from the constraints of representation,
the figurative center of art was increasingly abandoned. Its
representational subject-matter became unimportant and the purely pictorial
elements of hue, texture, form, and composition became the source of rich
originality. Artists forsook any attempt at capturing the world of
objects, and used color and form for their visual effect alone. One could
consider Pop Art the antithesis of abstraction, where common objects and
commercialized forms take center stage larger than life, or it could be the
apotheosis of abstraction, presenting stylized illustrations as pure
pictorialism. Abstraction reappeared in the subtle variation of repeated
simple forms for their pulsating effect on the eye, ingeniously exploited by Op
Art , while in Conceptual Art the object disappeared from space and
became only an imaginative construction.
This kaleidoscopic survey of the modern course of the visual arts verges on
caricature, but it nonetheless reveals a fascinating process of
transfiguration. In this succession of movements one may see imaginative
transmutations of the art object under the influence of light, of the eye, of
emotion, and of dreams, along with varying degrees of manipulation of the
object’s structure, its solidity, and its variability under the influence of
thought and imagination. This is often seen as a history of the
iconoclasm of the modern artist, constantly defying conventional expectations
and traditional modes. That turns it into an account of art movements
that increasingly reject traditional paradigms and incorporate the everyday
world and the participation of the viewer. This history could then be
read as an account of the vagaries of artistic imagination coupled with the
unbridled irreverence of the artist. To be sure, one can often find such
expressions in manifestations of the artistic temperament and its inclination
to notoriety.
However, I should like to suggest another, very different reading. This is to
consider the course of modern art as a narrative of transformation, not of
objects, but of experiences. Indeed, these developments signify a shift
from object-based art to experience-based art. The account displays not
so much a sequence of distorted or abandoned objects as a progressive sequence
of ways of seeing. The object becomes less important as the visual effect
increases in significance until, in abstract and conceptual art, the object
disappears entirely. From its dissolution into light and color in
Impressionism, the tactile sense of its pure physicality and weight in
Post-Impressionism, its transformation into a stimulus for evoking an emotional
response in Expressionism, its structural dissolution in Cubism, its physical
dissolution into movement in Futurism, its transition into parody in Dada, its
oneiric transmutation in Surrealism and into an ocular stimulus in Op Art, its
disappearance in abstract art in favor of the sensibility of pictorial
qualities, the lampooning effect of its parody in Pop Art – all these have made
the object less important or not important at all. In its place is art’s
effect on the spectator.
But to put it this way is actually misleading because it masks a crucial
difference: the audience in art is no longer a spectator but has become
rather a participant and co-creator, absorbing the visual or textual materials,
responding physically at times to its stimulation, and intellectually as well
as emotionally to its social critique, as in Futurism’s glorification of war
and Dada’s critique of bourgeois society, and by its participation in the
creative process, activating the art object. It is essential to
understand that this transformation in the arts did not turn appreciation into
pure subjectivity, into psychological effects disconnected from the body, the
art work, and the situation. Rather these arts demanded sharpened
awareness and acute perceptual attention to their sensible qualities.
They required recognizing the effects of art as conscious body
experience: physical as well as mental. Often this was required by
the perceptual demands of the art work for active participation in an
appreciative process that collaborates with the artistic one. Indeed,
these traditionally separate functions were fused in experiencing art. We
have, in short, the transformation of an art of objects into an art of
experiences. What does all this signify? To respond to this
question, let me turn to the scholarly analogue of the artistic process.
III. The transformations of aesthetic inquiry
While art has undergone a series of transformative changes, aesthetic theory
has largely remained mired in the framework and concepts of the eighteenth
century, grounded mainly in Kant’s aesthetics. I have written at length
elsewhere about the persistence of obsolescent concepts such as aesthetic
disinterestedness, contemplation, purposiveness without purpose, the quest for
universality, and the subjectivity of aesthetic judgments, as well as
questioning distinctions such as pure and adherent beauty, the sensible and the
supersensible, and aesthetics and morality.[1] Important as
these ideas may have been two centuries ago in establishing aesthetics within
the framework of a systematic philosophy and giving legitimacy and independence
to the arts, these concepts have become increasingly irrelevant to the actual
practices of artists and the appreciative experiences of the art public.
Despite being constrained by outmoded and irrelevant aesthetic concepts,
aesthetic inquiry has, in recent decades, pursued a number of directions that
reflect the expanded scope of the arts and aesthetic appreciation. And
the art public has been increasingly willing to accept the use of innovative
art materials and the widening range of art experiences that extend beyond the
museum or concert hall and into the home, the workplace, the street, and the
field. More significant still is the complete alteration of aesthetic
appreciation from the receptive contemplation of objects to an active aesthetic
engagement with the materials and conditions of art works. Nor is it any
longer clear or even possible to separate aesthetic value from moral value, as
the social significance and uses of art and the aesthetic have come into
greater prominence. Further, the increasingly political applications of
the arts belies their traditional exclusivity.
Along with the innovative approaches of the arts has come an enlargement of the
scope of aesthetic experiences, and new scholarly interests have emerged over
the last several decades. Among these are environmental aesthetics, the
aesthetics of politics, social aesthetics, including relational aesthetics, and
everyday aesthetics. The progressive broadening in the scope of aesthetic
inquiry and away from the conventional venues of art began, I think, largely by
focusing attention on the aesthetics of environment.[2] It started
with a return of attention to nature and an exploration of modes and conditions
of appreciation that differ greatly from the disinterested contemplation of
distant scenes. Walking in the woods, paddling a stream, hiking in a
wilderness, driving down a highway or along a rural road in an agricultural
landscape, and sailing a boat became recognized as occasions for aesthetic
pleasure, occasions where an intrinsic part of the enjoyment lay in entering
into some activity in the landscape. At the same time, recognition grew
that aesthetic engagement in environment embraces more than the appreciation of
nature, for a large part of environmental experience in the developed world
takes place in cities. Urban aesthetics began to enter into environmental
discourse, and including the built environment expanded the conditions and
possibilities of appreciation. Even outer space became a subject for
aesthetic awareness.[3]
Recognizing an aesthetic interest in environment has had powerful implications
for aesthetic inquiry more generally, for aesthetics has become concerned not
only with art objects but with aesthetic situations. And this shift was
not only a conceptual one but a material one: the focus of appreciation
was no longer on a discrete object but on a situation, and the traditional
dualistic assumption of Western philosophy that considered appreciation a
subjective response to an external object became increasingly inappropriate and
challenged. I have proposed replacing this model with the concept of
aesthetic engagement to reflect the embeddedness of the appreciator in every
environmental context. A related development is the formulation primarily
by Chinese environmental aestheticians of ecological aesthetics or
eco-aesthetics.[4]
Once environment gained aesthetic legitimacy, it led to other enlargements of
the venues of aesthetic appreciation. One of these lies in discerning
aesthetic values in social contexts, where the aesthetic is found in situations
involving different forms of human relationships, such as friendship, family,
and love. Aesthetic values are present in other associations as well, but
often in a negative form. Indeed, negative aesthetic values are common in
commercial situations, voluntary associations and, indeed, even forms of social
relations. Such contexts have led to recognizing perceptual experiences
that are common in social situations as negative in character.
Identifying such forms of aesthetic negativity as aesthetic affront, aesthetic
pain, and aesthetic depravity has led to broadening the scope of aesthetics to
include negative values. And because these values identify harmful
practices, aesthetics merges with ethics to form a basis for social criticism.[5]
A similar development is the idea of relational aesthetics developed by the
French critic Nicolas Bourriaud.[6] Applied to
the work of a number of contemporary artists, relational aesthetics recognizes
that their art creates a social space, a context for human relationships.
The art work then becomes an occasion for human interactions and the audience
is turned into a community.[7] This is a
development in the understanding of aesthetic experience, but under the
influence of traditional aesthetics, the art world has co-opted the insight of
relational aesthetics by the practice of replacing the term ‘relational
aesthetics’ with ‘relational art,’ thus turning a
situation into an object and entirely missing the point. of relational
aesthetics. The insight of relational aesthetics remains valid,
nevertheless.
Political aesthetics is yet another broadening of inquiry closely allied with
social aesthetics. Jacques Ranciére has called attention to the political
implications of sensibility: its distribution, its control, and its uses,
and he has developed this in the service of an argument for radical democracy.[8] Going about
this from another direction, Crispin Sartwell has interpreted the force of
political ideology from the fact that it is actually an aesthetic system, and
he sees politics promoting its goals by creating an aesthetic environment.[9] Employing
similar materials, Davide Panagia has related the force of an idea to the
bodily sensations that accompany it. He finds sensation at the source of
political thought and the aesthetic as the source of political action.[10] My own recent
work has joined closely both the social and the political implications of the
aesthetic. Recognizing that the heart of the aesthetic lies in
sensibility, I have claimed that developing the awareness and capacity of
aesthetic sensibility leads to immensely broader and richer social
experience. At the same time, through an awareness of negative aesthetics
and the negative sublime, aesthetic sensibility provides a powerful tool for
criticism by recognizing the human consequences of exploitative commercial and
political practices.[11]
Perhaps the most recent direction to emerge from the liberation and expansion
of aesthetic experience is what is known as the aesthetics of everyday
life. Although there is presently a flowering of work on everyday
aesthetics, the possibility of aesthetic gratification in ordinary objects and
events has long been known, even if degraded by prevalent philosophical
theory. Widely valued by poets, especially Romantic poets and those
in Asian traditions, the aesthetic in everyday situations has also been
recognized by novelists, as well.[12] It may
be most convenient, though, to locate its contemporary intellectual origins in
John Dewey’s Art
as Experience.[13] In that book Dewey argued against the
separation of art from life by basing aesthetic experience on the biological
and cultural conditions of human life. He located the aesthetic, not in
an internalized awareness of sensation and feeling, but in “a complete
interpenetration of self and the world of objects and events.”[14] Further,
Dewey maintained that “the esthetic…is the clarified and intensified
development of traits that belong to every normally complete experience.”[15]
I shall not attempt a chronology of the development of the present interest in
the aesthetics of everyday life. Instead, let me mention some significant
stages in its emergence. An important source came from the innovations
that were occurring in the arts in the mid-twentieth century. A
prime influence was the work of the American composer and theorist, John
Cage. Experimental and innovative, Cage’s interest in aleatoric (chance)
music became widely known through his piano work of 1952, 4’33”, which consisted entirely in the chance
occurrence of audible sounds that occurred during that interval of time.
Happenings, a predecessor of present-day performance art that originated in the
1950s, eliminated the separation between the art work and the viewer, who
became a participant in the work, which often comprised the unscripted, chance
events of an ordinary situation.
Such innovative developments in the arts had a profound effect on concurrent
work in aesthetics. Beginning in the 1990s, a series of steps in
the expansion of aesthetic appreciation were taken that resolutely rejected the
traditional separation of art from life activities, in the conviction that the
scope of the arts has no limits. Two books published in 1992 made an
extended case for a broader and more inclusive understanding of the aesthetic
that incorporated all activities within the purview of art. David
Novitz’s The
Boundaries of Art [16] abjured all limits
to art and extended the aesthetic to personal and social relationships, and
from these to politics. My book, Art and Engagement,[17] extended an
argument I had first made in 1970 for reconstructing aesthetics under the
influence of innovative developments in the contemporary arts.[18] The argument
explored the philosophical implications of considering aesthetic appreciation
in both traditional and contemporary arts as active perceptual
engagement. Two decades later, my book elaborated a theoretical position
for the enlargement of aesthetic experience that would include the objects and
events of daily life based on the practices and experience of the arts,
themselves.
Since these publications, there has been a proliferation of work developing and
detailing the unbridled extension of the aesthetic. The aesthetics of
everyday life is the most recent stage of this progressive broadening in the
scope of aesthetic inquiry that had begun with environmental aesthetics, and
important work has already appeared. The Aesthetics of Everyday Life, a collection published in 1995, included
essays on such topics as social aesthetics, the aesthetics of place, unplanned
building, landscape, sport, weather, smells and tastes, and food.[19] Katya
Mandoki’s Everyday
Aesthetics of 2007 was the first extended treatment of the
subject.[20] An
English-language version of a book that had originally been published in
Spanish in 1994, Mandoki’s Everyday
Aesthetics is a far-reaching study of aesthetic theory of
unusual scope and originality centering around the crucial role of aesthetics
in the contemporary highly technological and complex societies in which we now
live. This was soon followed by another volume with the same title and an
equally distinctive and original focus, Yuriko Saito’s Everyday Aesthetics.[21] Richly informed by the author’s native
Japanese culture and her long experience teaching at a school of art and
design, this book details the pervasive presence and influence of the aesthetic
over the many facets of everyday life, remarkable and unremarkable alike.
The most recent addition to these extended treatments is Thomas Leddy’s The Extraordinary in the Ordinary: The
Aesthetics of Everyday Life.[22] Leddy
develops an extensive critical review of much of the literature, as well as the
current scholarly debates, leading to his own contribution in the form of a
phenomenologically-oriented approach to aesthetics. He proposes the
concept of ‘aura’ to identify the quality an object can have when experienced
as aesthetic. It is a quality that is not confined to art objects but to
the culturally-conditioned experiences of daily life.
IV.
Conclusion: The transformations of aesthetic theory
I have depicted a broad landscape on these pages, rather like one of
Constable’s wall-sized canvases, and I hope it shares their realism in its
theoretical and historical perspective on developments in art and aesthetics.
For besides the greater range of interests and applications in
aesthetics, these developments have demonstrated the obsolescence of
traditional concepts. Let me suggest some implications that seem to
emerge from the trends in aesthetic experience and theory I have been detailing
here. Although the authors I have mentioned may not subscribe to all of
the ideas I shall offer in my conclusion, I think that the developments to
which they have contributed support this transformation of aesthetics.
To begin, it is clear that there is a sharp dislocation between the practices
of many contemporary artists, their art works, and the experience and behavior
of the art public, and with modern aesthetic theory, especially as it has been
formulated under the influence of Kant. That theory is grounded in a
separation between the subjectivity of aesthetic experience and the objectivity
of the art object, in a separation between beauty and utility, and in the
sequestering of the arts and natural beauty in museums and privileged views and
away from the ordinary course of human life activities. While such a
theory may be thought to honor the special aesthetic forcefulness of the
noblest artistic creations, it does so at the expense of severely constricting
the scope of aesthetic appreciation, and that belies the prevalence of
aesthetic value in human cultures. Is it possible to have a theoretical
frame that retains the validity of the sacred experience of great art and
awesome natural scenes while, at the same time, recognizing and accounting for
the fact that aesthetic interests pervade every domain of human
experience?
I believe that it is possible and that
we need concepts that can accommodate both in proper proportion. These
can be developed by enlarging the scope and understanding of aesthetics.
First, we need to overcome the fragmentation that results from the many
divisions drawn by traditional theory, such as between the appreciator of art
and the art object, between beauty and utility, and between cognitive and
non-cognitive experience. We need, in fact, a unifying concept that can
admit connections, mutual influences, and reciprocity without losing the
aesthetic altogether. Such a concept may be found in the notion of an aesthetic field, an idea that embodies the understanding
that the presence and functioning of aesthetic values occur in a context that
encompasses the principal factors in the experience of aesthetic value.
The aesthetic field can accommodate artistic innovation and expanded
appreciative occasions for appreciation along with traditional arts, for it
enfolds the four functional constituents present in all: the objective,
the appreciative, the creative, and the performative, none of which can
be taken independently of the others.[23]
The central idea in appreciation now becomes aesthetic engagement, which recognizes the participation that active
appreciation requires and that the contemporary arts increasingly demand.
We also need to recognize that the art object is no longer the sole repository
of aesthetic value and to accept that it need not occupy an elevated
status. For now the art work can be something of ordinary use or no
object at all but a perceptual experience or even only an idea. Nor need
it be complete and polished but simply a processive event, like much of daily
life. The context of appreciation has also changed along with the unity
of the art object, both of which now share the incompleteness of ordinary
experience. That is why the human environment has become the wider
locus of the aesthetic and the context in which specific questions need to be
asked and considered. We
need to discern this new landscape of aesthetics
[1]
Most of these ideas characteristic of traditional “modern” aesthetics find
their support in Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Judgment (1790, 1793).
[2]
The literature here has become extensive. Some of the influential works
include R. W. Hepburn, "Contemporary Aesthetics and the Neglect of Natural
Beauty," in Wonder and other Essays (Edinburgh: The University Press, 1984).
-----, The Reach of the Aesthetic (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001), Arnold
Berleant, The Aesthetics of Environment (Philadelphia: Temple University
Press, 1992), ------, Living in the
Landscape: Toward an Aesthetics of Environment (Lawrence: University Press of
Kansas, 1997), ------, Aesthetics and
Environment, Theme and Variations (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 2005), Allen Carlson, Aesthetics and the Environment (New York: Routledge), 2000; Allen
Carlson, Nature and Landscape: An Introduction to
Environmental Aesthetics
(New York: Columbia University Press, 2009), Yrjö Sepänmaa, The Beauty of Environment: A General Model for Environmental Aesthetics (Environmental Ethics Books, P.O. Box
310980, Denton, TX, 1993), Emily Brady, Aesthetics
of the Natural Environment
(Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2003).
[3]
See “Designing Outer Space” in Arnold Berleant, The
Aesthetics of Environment
(Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1992), pp.99-113.
[4]
Zang Fan-ren,《生态美学导论》An Introduction to Ecological Aesthetics, A Review of the Relationship
between Eco-aesthetics and Environmental Aesthetics (Beijing: The Commercial Press, 2010), in
Chinese. ‘Eco-aesthetics’ is the term Zeng and his followers use as a
shortened form of ‘ecological aesthetics.’ See also Cheng, Xiangzhan,
“On the Four Keystones of Ecological Aesthetic Appreciation,” Tianjin Social
Sciences, Vol. 5, 2012 (in Chinese), Asian
Ecocriticism Reader,
ed. Simon C. Estok and Won-Chung Kim (in English).
[5]
The literature here is small but growing. See Arnold Berleant, Sensibility and Sense: The Aesthetic Transformation of the Human
World (Exeter, UK:
Imprint Academic, 2010), ----, Aesthetics beyond
the Arts (Aldershot:
Ashgate, 2012), Miyahara Kojiro and Fujisaka Shingo, Invitation to Social Aesthetics; Exploration of Society through
Sensibility (Kyoto:
Minerva Shobō, 2012) (in Japanese). An extended discussion of
negative aesthetics occurs in Sensibility and Sense, pp. 155-192.
[6]
Originated by the art critic NIcolas Bourriaud in his 1998 book, Esthétique relationnelle (Relational Aesthetics). Bourriaud later
associated this idea to the effects of the Internet on mental space.
[7]
See Relational Aesthetics, pp. 113, 13.
[8]
See Jacques Rancière, The Politics of
Aesthetics: The Distribution of the Sensible , trans. Gabriel Rockhill (Continuum International,
2004).
[9]
Crispin Sartwell, Political Aesthetics (Ithaca: Cornell University Press,
2010).
[10]
Davide Panagia, The Political Life of Sensation (Duke University Press, 2009).
[11]
Arnold Berleant, Sensibility and Sense: The Aesthetic
Transformation of the Human World (Exeter, UK: Imprint Academic, 2010), ----, Aesthetics beyond the Arts (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2012).
[12] Consider, for example, this passage
from Daniel Deronda (1876):
“[U]nder his calm and somewhat self-repressed exterior there was a fervor which
made him easily find poetry and romance among the events of everyday
life. And perhaps poetry and romance re as plentiful as ever in the world
except for those phlegmatic natures who I suspect would in any age have
regarded them as a dull form of erroneous thinking. They exist very
easily in the same room with the microscope and even in railway
carriages: what banishes them is the vacuum in gentlemen and lady
passengers. How should all the apparatus of heaven and earth, from the
farthest firmament to the tender bosom of the mother who nourished us, make
poetry for a mind that has no movements of awe and tenderness, no sense of
fellowship which thrills from the near to the distant, and back again from the
distant to the near?” George Eliot, Daniel Deronda (1876) (New York: Knopf, 2000), p. 221.
[13]
John Dewey Art as Experience (1934) (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons,
1958).
[14]
John Dewey, Art as Experience, p. 19.
[15]
Ibid., p. 46.
[16]
David Novitz, The Boundaries of Art (Philadelphia: Temple University
Press, 1992).
[17]
Arnold Berleant, Art and Engagement (Philadelphia: Temple University
Press, 1992).
[18]
Arnold Berleant, "Aesthetics and the Contemporary Arts," The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, XXIX, 2 (Winter l970), l55‑l68. Reprinted
in The Philosophy of the Visual Arts, ed. Philip Alperson (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1992), and in part in Esthetics
Contemporary, ed. Richard
Kostelanetz, l978.
[19]
Aesthetics of Everyday Life, ed. Andrew Light and Jonathan M. Smith
(New York: Columbia University Press, 2005.
[20]
Katya Mandoki, Everyday Aesthetics: Prosaics, the Play
of Culture and Social Identities (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007).
[21]
Yuriko Saito, Everyday Aesthetics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007).
[22]
Thomas Leddy, The Extraordinary in the Ordinary: The Aesthetics
of Everyday Life (Peterborough,
Ont: Broadview, 2012).s
[23] A further sign of the
extension of the aesthetic may be seen in the annual French observance in
Marseilles of a Semaine de la Pop
Philosophie. See www.lesrencontresplacepublique.fr
(accessed 14 August 2012).
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário