No Tension. David Hume’s Solution to Everyday Aesthetics

María Jesús Godoy

Abstract


This study looks at the emerging branch of everyday aesthetics from the perspective of the fracture which exists in its core, as a result of the double reading of the everyday: the first, which elevates it to the realm of the extraordinary and the second, in which it remains strictly ordinary. Our purpose here is to repair this fracture by turning to David Hume’s functionalist aesthetics, where disinterest and utility are reconciled through sympathy and the affective experience of otherness that it provides. Once transferred to the everyday sphere, sympathy facilitates understanding between these two versions, since the aesthetic appreciation of everyday objects or common activities requires, like the second version, that they remain in the practical environment and, like the first, to see something special in them, which is the possibility of one’s own or another’s well-being.


Keywords


Everyday Aesthetics; Functional Beauty; Hume; Saito; Leddy

Full Text:

PDF (English)

References


Berleant, A. (2012) Aesthetics beyond the Arts: New and Recent Essays. Abingdon: Ashgate Publishing Group.

Dowling, Ch. (2010) ‘The Aesthetics of Daily Life’, The British Journal of Aesthetics, 50(3), pp. 225-242. Doi: 10.1093/aesthj/ayq021.

Forsey, J. (2013) The Aesthetics of Design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Forsey, J. (2014) ‘The Promise, the Challenge of Everyday Aesthetics’, Aisthesis. Rivista on-line del Seminario Permanente di Estetica, 7(1), pp. 5-21. Doi: 10.13128/Aisthesis-

Haapala, A. (2005) ‘On the Aesthetics of the Everyday. Familiarity, Strangeness and the Meaning of Place’, in Light, A. and Smith, J.M. (eds.) The Aesthetics of Everyday Life. Nueva York: Columbia University Press, pp. 39-55.

Heidegger, M. (1988) Being and Time. New York: Harper and Row.

Hume, D. (2006) An Enquiry concerning The Principles of Morals. Edited by T.L. Beauchamp. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Hume, D. (1963) ‘Of the Standard of Taste’, in Essays. Moral, Political and Literary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 231-255.

Hume, D. (2007) A Treatise of Human Nature. Vol 1. Edited by D.F. Norton and M.J. Norton. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Infante del Rosal, F. (2013) ‘Simpatía, naturaleza e identidad en Hume’, Eikasia. Revista de Filosofía, 51, pp. 179-204.

Irvin, Sh. (2008) ‘Scratching an Itch’, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 66(1), pp. 25-35. Doi: 10.1111/j.1540-594X.2008.00285.x.

Jones, P. (1993) ‘Hume’s literary and aesthetics theory’, in Norton, D. F. (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Hume. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 255-280.

Kivy, P. (2003) ‘Hume’s Neighbour’s Wife: An Essay on the Evolution of Hume’s Aesthetics’, in The Seventh Sense: Francis Hutcheson and Eighteenth-Century British Aesthetics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Doi:

1093/0199260028.001.0001.

Leddy, T. (2012) The Extraordinary in the Ordinary. The Aesthetics of Everyday Life. Ontario: Broadview Press.

Leddy, T. (2015) ‘Experience of Awe: an Expansive Approach to Everyday Aesthetics’, Contemporary Aesthetics, 13. Available at: https://www.contempaesthetics.org/newvolume/pages/article.php?articleID=727 (Accessed: 24 June 2021).

Leddy, T. (2005) ‘The Nature of Everyday Aesthetics’, in Light, A. and Smith, J.M. (eds.) The Aesthetics of Everyday Life. Nueva York: Columbia University Press, pp. 3-22.

Leddy, T. (1995) ‘Everyday Surface Aesthetic Qualities: ‘Neat’, ‘Messy’, ‘Clean’, ‘Dirty’’, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 53(3), pp. 259-268. Doi: 10.1111/1540_6245.jaac53.3.0259.

Levinson, J. (2002) ‘Hume’s Standard of Taste: The Real Problem’, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 60 (3), pp. 227-238. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6245.00070

López Lloret, J. (2003) ‘De la utilidad de la belleza. Argumentos sobre el clasicismo en la estética de David Hume’, Daimon. Revista de Filosofía, 28, pp. 25-40.

López Lloret, J. (2009) ‘Adam Smith y la teoría social’, Pensamiento, 245(65), pp. 485-501.

Melchionne, K. (2013) ‘The Definition of Everyday Aesthetics’, Contemporary Aesthetics, 11. Available at: https://www.contempaesthetics.org/newvolume/pages/article.php?articleID=663&searchstr=melchionne (Accessed: 22 June 2021).

Parsons, G. and Carlson, A. (2008) Functional Beauty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Poulakka, K. (2014) ‘Dewey and Everyday Aesthetics: A New Look’, Contemporary Aesthetics, 12. Available at: https://www.contempaesthetics.org/newvolume/pages/article.php?articleID=699 (Accessed: 18 June 2021).

Saccamano, N. (2011) ‘Aesthetically Non-Dwelling: Sympathy, Property and the House of Beauty in Hume’s Treatise’, Journal of Scottish Philosophy, 9(1), pp. 37-58.

Saito, Y. (2017) Aesthetics of the Familiar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Saito, Y. (2007) Everyday Aesthetics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Saito, Y. (2012) “Everyday Aesthetics and Artification”, Contemporary Aesthetics, 10. Available at: https://www.contempaesthetics.org/newvolume/pages/article.php?articleID=640&searchstr=saito%2C+yuriko (Accessed: 15 June 2021).

Sartwell, C. (2003) ‘Aesthetics of the Everyday’, in Levinson, J. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Aesthetics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 761-770.

Shusterman, R. (1989) ‘On the Scandal of Taste: Social Privilege as Nature in the Aesthetic Theories of Kant and Hume’, The Philosophical Forum, 20 (3), pp. 211-229.

Tavernor, R. (1991) Palladio and Palladianism. London: Thames and Hudson.

Townsend, D. (2014) Hume’s Aesthetic Theory. New York: Routledge.

Vitruvius (1960) The Ten Books on Architecture. New York: Dover.

Wittkower, R. (1983) Palladio and English Palladianism. London: Thames and Hudson.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5866398

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

         

 

ESPES. The Slovak Journal of Aesthetics (ISSN 1339-1119) is published biannually by Faculty of Arts, University of Presov, Slovakia and the Society for Aesthetics in Slovakia

   This journal is open access and licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.