6. These are objects against which we react and which we describe in aesthetic terms. Besides the natural landscape—which is integrated easily into this category—there is a whole category on human activity (attire, decoration, furniture, etc), in which aesthetics and taste play an important role.
7. ‘Thus the class of aesthetic objects is an "open" class, a family always capable of extending itself by marriage or adoption, and the concept "aesthetic object" is an "open" concept in the sense that we can never specify all the necessary and sufficient conditions an entity must satisfy to fall under it.’1
8. The perpetual theoretical discussion that accompanies the concept of the ‘aesthetic object,’ as well as the objections that have been expressed, are all ‘fertile food’ for the exhibition, which appeals directly to the market and tests theoretical research aimed at the formation of an aesthetics of everyday life, according to recent theoretical research as well.2
9. Of great interest is the analytical distinction that the arts symbolize the general motifs of our emotional life, presenting to our perception the form or structure of this life, while ‘aesthetic objects’ symbolize the qualities of our aesthetic experience.3
10. More generally, ‘What is noteworthy about art-centered aesthetics is that its
discussion focuses exclusively on how art objects and their experiences differ from other objects and experiences. At the same time, any discussion regarding the aesthetic dimension of non-art objects is almost always conducted by examining to what extent they are similar to art. As a result, the aesthetics of non-art objects is typically discussed in terms of whether or not they can be considered art. I believe that this art-centered approach misconstrues the nature of our aesthetic lives, as well as unduly limits its scope.’4
11. Art still constitutes the measure for the formation of the general (universal) aesthetic criterion. The discussion around the need to establish an autonomous—in terms of art—aesthetic field for non-art objects is partly on account of, and a response to, the crisis in visual arts, which, in our times, are being almost completely exhausted in terms of invention and technique.
1 Weitz, Morris. ‘The Role of Theory in Aesthetics,’ reprinted in Margolis, Joseph. Philosophy Looks at the Arts (New York, 1962), pp. 54-55.
2 In the collective work The Aesthetics of Everyday Life, edited by Light, Andrew and Smith, Jonathan M., Columbia University Press, New York 2005, an attempt is made to establish a theory of aesthetics concerning the landscape, weather, smells and tastes, and food, among other things.
3 Zimmerman, Robert L. ‘Can Anything Be an Aesthetic Object?’ in The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 25, No. 2 (Winter, 1966), pp. 179-180, analyzing the ideas of Susanne Langer.
4 Saito, Yuriko. Everyday Aesthetics, Oxford University Press, 2007.