chap 1 of the edited volume, includes sections on the environment (built or not) and food
apparently there is a considerable overlap between everyday aesthetics and environmental aesthetic, because it focuses on the entire lived experience, in a holistic manner (all of the senses are involved, so does that exclude software?)
just because we are fully engaged in some sort of activity in the everyday, doesn’t mean we can’t stand back and enjoy this activity from an aesthetic point of view!
everyday aesthetics might be correlated with Kant’s notion of agreeable (as opposed to the beautiful). kant says that “taste” does not come into play when it comes to the agreeable.
objection #1: aesthetics don’t have to be completely disinterested
objection #2: the concept of beauty should not be excluded from everyday aesthetics
objection #3: there could still be an imaginative (cognitive) component in the appreciation of the agreeable
he beautiful is primarily a matter of the play of imagination and understanding. (p.26)
it’s also important to remember the corollary: the feeling of displeasure when we see things we don’t find beautiful
question about the adjective “right” (feels right, looks right, etc.), which refers to Goodman’s “rightness of fit”. there is also a practical sense of right, which creates a link (if ambiguous) between aesthetic and practical
qualities such as ordered or right are baseline in aesthetics: they come before more complicated ones, such as symmetrical or proportional
Beauty is the sensible shining of the idea (Hegel)
Someone might argue that the domain of everyday aesthetics should be understood as completely subjective, and that Kant’s point about the agreeable is also appropriate here: there is no disputing tastes in everyday aesthetics. On the other hand, there are regions within everyday aesthetics in which taste does not seem that subjective. (such as code)