Stella aSlani / everyday aeStheticS and the dichotomy Between routine and chariSma
241
Stella Aslani
University of Ljubljana
Everyday Aesthetics and the Dichotomy Between
Routine and Charisma
Introduction
A few years ago, the author of this paper engaged in a year-long photography pro-
ject, taking a photo each day. The project was primarily initiated to cultivate a creative
outlet during a period when the author’s life lacked a discernible charismatic1 ele-
ment. In other words, the author sought to influence her life through art and creative
expression, drawing inspiration from authors such as Friedrich Schiller and Arthur
Schopenhauer, who highlighted the significance of art as the conveyer of truth(s) and,
through this, as a catalyst for meaningful change.2 The author’s objective was to ex-
plore facets of herself, human nature, the creative process, and other themes that had
not yet crossed her mind at the project’s inception, but rather emerged as serendipitous
by-products throughout its duration.
The author embarked on this project with the intention of breaking her routine,
and initially, it proved to be a resounding success. Each day, she eagerly sought out
the extraordinary details and scenes within the seemingly ordinary things around
her. This not only infused her life with a charismatic element but also imbued the
objects themselves with a sense of allure. However, the author soon realized that the
very act she consciously undertook to break free from her routine had inadvertently
become a new routine – a realization reminiscent of Schopenhauer’s philosophy
1 The term charismatic is used here with reference to Max Weber’s definition of charisma - “The term
‘charisma’ will be applied to a certain quality of an individual personality by virtue of which he is
set apart from ordinary men and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least
specifically exceptional powers or qualities.” (Weber, 1968, 48). However, in the context of the paper
the term is employed more generally rather than exclusively pertaining to an individual
2 Both Friedrich Schiller, in his work On the Aesthetic Education of Man, and Arthur Schopenhauer, in
his work The World as Will and Representation, explore various aspects of society, life, human nature,
and the transformative power of art. According to Schiller, art has the capacity to initiate change by
bridging two contrasting human impulses: the sense impulse and the form impulse. This bridging is
accomplished through a third impulse known as the play impulse. On the other hand, Schopenhauer
proposes that art can momentarily alleviate the inherent suffering experienced by humans. By engaging
in aesthetic contemplation, individuals can transcend the Will and become pure, Will-less subjects,
offering a temporary respite from suffering.
DOI:10.4312/ars.17.2.241-255
Ars & Humanitas_2023_2_FINAL.indd 241 6. 02. 2024 13:36:22
Stella aSlani / everyday aeStheticS and the dichotomy Between routine and chariSma
242
regarding the Will and suffering, which cautions against the absence of a permanent
state of being a pure, Will-less subject. The initial excitement of engaging in a crea-
tive endeavour gradually waned, replaced by a sense of obligation to take a daily
photo. This obligation manifested in the quality of the photos themselves, and even
influenced the chosen motifs.
It thus emerged that art, in contrast to popular belief, can also assume a routine-
like nature, prompting the author to contemplate the following: If art can encompass
both the extraordinary and the routine, could everyday life similarly possess elements
of both routine and extraordinariness? Is it conceivable that the dichotomy between
art and life is not a true dichotomy? To address these inquiries, the paper delves deeper
into how proponents of everyday aesthetics define key terms such as everyday life, art,
routine, and charisma.
Beyond Aesthetics: Everyday Aesthetics
Defining everyday aesthetics – along with associated terms such as everyday life, art,
routine, and charisma – from the perspective of everyday aesthetics can pose challenges.
Different theorists approach everyday aesthetics in various ways, with some perceiving
it solely as the aestheticization of everyday behaviour, while others employ it to clas-
sify everything “that is not fine art or does not come from the natural environment”
(Naukkarinen, 2013). Meanwhile, certain theorists adopt a middle ground in their defi-
nitions of everyday aesthetics. However, regardless of the chosen approach, it remains
indisputable, as demonstrated by Katya Mandoki in her book Everyday Aesthetics: Pro-
saics, the Play of Culture and Social Identities, that it is not only possible but crucial to
expand the domain of aesthetics to encompass the multifaceted nature of everyday life.3
In the mentioned book, published in 2007, but having roots in the early 1990s
when Mandoki first coined the term prosaics, she defines the term as follows:
In prosaics, however, the aesthetic is related to experience as the live dimen-
sion of reality without necessarily implying any relation to beauty or pleasure.
For that reason prosaics can be considered close to a philosophical and an-
thropological aesthesiology (for example, as the study of the cultural opera-
tion of the senses) or part of a socio-aesthetics (as the unfolding of aesthesis
in social life). Prosaics is concerned both with aesthetic mechanisms and with
their effects upon sensitivity. (Mandoki, 2007, 74)
3 It is noteworthy that the field of aesthetics, since its establishment in the 18th century by Alexander
Gottlieb Baumgarten in his book Aesthetica, has focused on the study of “natural objects and
phenomena, built structures, utilitarian objects, and human actions, to what is today regarded as the
fine arts” (Saito, 2019). Baumgarten defined aesthetics as the science of sensory knowledge. However,
the scope of aesthetics, especially since the beginning of 19th century, has been mostly confined to the
realm of artistic expression and “increasingly focused on the fine arts” (Saito, 2019).
Ars & Humanitas_2023_2_FINAL.indd 242 6. 02. 2024 13:36:22
Stella aSlani / everyday aeStheticS and the dichotomy Between routine and chariSma
243
Mandoki delves into the examination of various everyday cultural practices and their
playful nature. She advocates for the expansion of aesthetics to encompass the realm of
everyday life. Mandoki builds her thesis by asserting that elements within one’s daily life
possess an additional dimension beyond their informative and functional value. Wheth-
er it is ordinary conversations, political propaganda, the media, government, or fashion,
she argues that this additional dimension constitutes the aesthetic. In her writings, Man-
doki highlights the presence of this aesthetic dimension in everyday phenomena:
By aesthetic devices, identities for commodities are fabricated to tempt the
consumer, for nation states to achieve cohesion, for religions to instill devo-
tion, and for professionals to persuade upon their credibility. Aesthetics have
a definitive role also in arguing for the innocence or guilt of a defendant, in
favoring one political candidate over another and certainly in recruiting vol-
unteers for virulent organizations. There is no social group that does not gen-
erate some form or another of aesthetics. (Mandoki, 2007, xv)
Moreover, Mandoki follows Johan Huizinga’s view on play preceding culture:
Play is a voluntary activity or occupation executed within certain fixed limits
of time and space, according to rules freely accepted but absolutely biding,
having its aim in itself and accompanied by a feeling of tension, joy, and the
consciousness that it is ‘different’ from ‘ordinary life’. (Huizinga, 1955, 28)
She thus argues that play and aesthetics are the same, and that, as she writes:
[...] prosaics does not explore aesthetics in culture focusing on artistic displays
or decorative elements in daily life, but the aesthetics of culture, namely how
culture in inherently woven by aesthetic games. (Mandoki, 2007, 93)
In essence, Mandoki explores various cultural practices and reveals their under-
lying playful nature. She emphasizes the significance of extending aesthetics beyond
its conventional boundaries and incorporating the realm of everyday life. Mandoki
argues that everyday life is rich with aesthetic experiences and elements, and stresses
the importance of recognizing and appreciating them. By doing so, she challenges the
notion that aesthetics is solely limited to art and beauty, encouraging a broader under-
standing of aesthetics in the context of everyday existence:
[...] art and reality, like aesthetics and the everyday, are totally entwined, not
thanks to the explicit will of the artist, but because there is nothing further,
beneath or beyond reality. (Mandoki, 2007, 16)
Ars & Humanitas_2023_2_FINAL.indd 243 6. 02. 2024 13:36:22
Stella aSlani / everyday aeStheticS and the dichotomy Between routine and chariSma
244
One could argue that the ubiquity and commonplace nature of the everyday prac-
tices Mandoki explores often leads to their neglect or insufficient attention, prevent-
ing a thorough investigation of their significance. Similarly, everyday aesthetic experi-
ences may also go unnoticed or underappreciated. Addressing this gap, Yuriko Saito’s
book Everyday Aesthetics, published shortly after the Mandoki text considered here,
examines one’s daily aesthetic experiences and their profound influence on the state of
the world and the quality of life. Saito emphasizes the interconnectedness of aesthet-
ics and everyday life, highlighting how these experiences shape our perception and
impact our surroundings. As Saito writes:
[...] everyday aesthetic tastes and attitudes often do lead to consequences
which go beyond simply being preoccupied with and fussing with the surface,
and that they affect not only our daily life but also the state of the society and
the world. (Saito, 2007, 55)
In her work Saito thus explores the aesthetic evaluation of unique signs found
in objects or phenomena, looking into the responses elicited by different manifesta-
tions of transience and the aesthetic expression of moral values. Saito also examines
the moral, political, existential, and environmental ramifications arising from these
issues and other related topics. By investigating these aspects, she sheds light on the
broader implications of aesthetic experiences in relation to our moral and social
contexts.
What is intriguing about Saito’s writing is her emphasis on surpassing the tradi-
tional focus of aesthetics solely on fine art and beauty, aligning with Mandoki’s per-
spective. Saito also highlights the significance of moral-aesthetic judgments in eve-
ryday life. She argues that “a person’s aesthetic sensibility [...] can be an important
measure of his moral capacity” (Saito, 2007, 238). Moreover, she posits that every in-
dividual, not just artists and creators, bears a moral-aesthetic responsibility. As Saito
puts it, “everyone’s engagement in this on-going project of literal world-making, I be-
lieve, is as important as every citizen’s political participation in democratic society”
(Saito, 2007, 241). As such, it is not surprising that she considers the participatory
aspect of everyday aesthetics to be crucial.
Everyday aesthetics, I firmly believe, has to be a part of the strategies for the
project of world-making, to which all of us in some way participate, both per-
sonally and professionally, sometimes quite consciously and some other times
unwittingly. (Saito, 2007, 244)
Ars & Humanitas_2023_2_FINAL.indd 244 6. 02. 2024 13:36:22
Stella aSlani / everyday aeStheticS and the dichotomy Between routine and chariSma
245
Everydayness vs Non-Everyday-Like
In his article titled “What is ‘Everyday’ in Everyday Aesthetics?”, Ossi Naukkarinen
approaches the question of defining everyday aesthetics. While Mandoki and Saito
primarily emphasize the extension of mainstream aesthetics to encompass everyday
life and the participatory role of everyday aesthetics, Naukkarinen’s main focus, as
suggested by the title, centres around understanding the concept of the everyday itself.
According to Naukkarinen, everyday life is “the unavoidable basis on which eve-
rything else is built” (Naukkarinen, 2013), and it is an essential and inescapable aspect
of human existence. He acknowledges that a life devoid of everydayness is practically
inconceivable, emphasizing the pervasive nature of the everyday in our lives. In his
article, Naukkarinen introduces a framework that distinguishes between everydayness
and non-everyday-like experiences. He illustrates the role of art as a positive disrup-
tion of routine, offering an example of something that surpasses the ordinary. How-
ever, Naukkarinen highlights that while artworks may generate extraordinary experi-
ences for some individuals, they can be familiar and everyday-like for others. As a
result, he concludes that “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 some-
thing that is unsuited for the everyday contexts” (Naukkarinen, 2013).
Naukkarinen takes a unique approach to defining everyday aesthetics, proposing
that art and art-related experiences can be integral to one’s everyday life. He recognizes
that there is not a single definitive definition of aesthetics, but rather a multitude of
interconnected interpretations that are relevant to everyday aesthetics. However, what
is particularly noteworthy in Naukkarinen’s article is the recurring emphasis on two
concepts: everydayness and non-everyday-like. These concepts bring attention to the
perceived dichotomy between art and life, even in situations where art forms part of
one’s everyday experience. Despite art’s integration into everydayness, the distinction
between the ordinary and extraordinary persists.
In his article “On the Aesthetics of the Everyday: Familiarity, Strangeness, and the
Meaning of Place”, Arto Haapala examines the concepts of familiarity and strangeness
from the perspective of place. He argues that human beings naturally seek familiar-
ity and create a sense of familiarity in their surroundings. On the other hand, art is
often presented in contexts that evoke a sense of strangeness. Haapala suggests that
aesthetics tends to prioritize maximizing the element of strangeness and minimizing
familiarity in order to create aesthetic experiences.
Haapala’s perspective on familiarity and strangeness, which corresponds to routine
and charisma, aligns with the viewpoints of Naukkarinen and Saito regarding every-
day aesthetics. Each of them, in their own unique manner, highlights the significance
of routine or everyday experiences rather than solely focusing on the extraordinary or
Ars & Humanitas_2023_2_FINAL.indd 245 6. 02. 2024 13:36:22
Stella aSlani / everyday aeStheticS and the dichotomy Between routine and chariSma
246
charismatic elements.4 Saito, for instance, identifies two ways in which individuals ap-
preciate the everyday. The first, referred to as the normative approach, involves seeking
the extraordinary within ordinary circumstances:
There are many aesthetic gems hidden in our everyday life, but we do not
notice, let alone appreciate, most of them because we usually do not engage
with them as aesthetic objects. Here we appreciate the help provided by pho-
tographs, literature, and other visual arts for revealing, highlighting, and il-
luminating those aesthetic treasures. (Saito, 2007, 244)
On the other hand, the second approach, which Saito adopts in her emphasis
on the moral dimension of everyday aesthetics, can be characterized as a descriptive
approach. This perspective focuses on recognizing the value of the ordinary within
everyday experiences, as Saito elaborates in her writings. It involves appreciating the
inherent qualities and significance of the ordinary without the need for exceptional or
extraordinary elements:
Everyday aesthetics, I argued, should not be exclusively concerned with dis-
counting ordinary and seemingly pragmatically directed reactions that often
result in various actions, such as cleaning, throwing away, purchasing, and
preserving, while promoting positive aesthetic experiences from unlikely ob-
jects and phenomena from our daily life. I hope to have shown in the preced-
ing discussion that this first kind of reactions are actually not that simple; nor
are they insignificant because of possible consequences that affect the quality
of life and the state of the world. (Saito, 2007, 245)
Haapala expresses a similar viewpoint by writing:
I think we should simply become more aware of the pleasurable aspects of the
everyday without making them objects of aesthetic appreciation in the tradi-
tional sense. Perhaps we could give new meaning to the phrase ‘the aesthetics
(or the art) of living’, that is, to value the particulars of the everyday. This adds
a new dimension to our aesthetic thinking, a dimension that is indeed domi-
4 The remaining part of the paper will continue to use the opposition between routine and charisma to
explore the dichotomy between the virtues of everyday life and the virtues of art. This terminological
pair is considered more effective in capturing this dichotomy than other pairs such as everydayness
and non-everyday-like, ordinary and extraordinary, or familiarity and strangeness. In this paper, the
term routine is used as a broad term encompassing everything that is regular and customary, while
charisma serves as an umbrella term for everything that deviates from the ordinary and approaches the
substance traditionally associated with art.
Ars & Humanitas_2023_2_FINAL.indd 246 6. 02. 2024 13:36:22
Stella aSlani / everyday aeStheticS and the dichotomy Between routine and chariSma
247
nant in our daily life. Aesthetics does not have to be only about the extraordi-
nary; it can also be about our daily routines. (Haapala, 2005, 52)
Naukkarinen also affirms this perspective by stating that:
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. (Naukkarinen, 2013)
However, no matter which of the two approaches one decides to take, be it norma-
tive or descriptive, and regardless of the preferred set of terms, such as everydayness/
non-everyday-like, familiarity/strangeness, or routine/charisma, it is apparent from
the above discussion that the authors of everyday aesthetics tend to focus on the ordi-
nary and everyday life, in contrast to the more traditional emphasis on the charismatic
and art. It is not surprising, then, that one would conclude that the dichotomy between
art and life lies at the very core of everyday aesthetics, as is the case with Schiller’s writ-
ings on the dichotomy of human nature.
A Dichotomy That Is Not
Consider Mandoki’s exploration of the myth of the opposition between art and life in
her chapter The Myths of Aesthetics:
To insist on the separation between art and life equals to believing in the sepa-
ration between science, technology, philosophy, and life. All are ways for the
appropriation of reality, ways of seeing and understanding life, and of trans-
forming it. (Mandoki, 2007, 16)
From this it is reasonable to conclude that the aforementioned dichotomy is not
a genuine dichotomy, but rather an artificially imposed one. Furthermore, the terms
routine and charisma are not inherently opposing terms, unlike Schiller’s sense and
form impulses that require bridging, as Schiller himself expresses it:
We have now reached the conception of a reciprocal action between the two
impulses, of such a kind that the operation of the one at the same time confirms
and limits the operation of the other, and each one severally reaches its highest
manifestation precisely through the activity of the other. (Schiller, 2004, 73)
Ars & Humanitas_2023_2_FINAL.indd 247 6. 02. 2024 13:36:22
Stella aSlani / everyday aeStheticS and the dichotomy Between routine and chariSma
248
Instead they are terms that share a resemblance with Schopenhauer’s concepts of
the beautiful and sublime, as he defines them in his writings. According to Schopen-
hauer, these terms encompass a spectrum of states rather than a singular dichotomy.
As Schopenhauer himself eloquently expressed:
The feeling of the sublime is distinguished from that of the beautiful only by
the addition, namely the exaltation beyond the known hostile relation of the
contemplated object to the will in general. Thus there result several degrees of
the sublime, in fact transitions from the beautiful to the sublime [...] (Scho-
penhauer, 1969, 202)
The author of this paper noticed and experienced first-hand the lack of a clear
distinction between the terms routine and charisma through her photography project.
Initially, she was surprised to discover that the act of breaking her routine had become
a new routine in itself. However, as she continued with her project, she observed how
her routine would transform into charisma, and then back into routine, sometimes in
a matter of seconds.
Upon reflection, it becomes apparent that the project itself can be characterized
as a dynamic and ongoing endeavour, comprised of a minimum of 12 distinct stages,
each of which can be further subdivided into their own sub-stages, and so forth. It
is worth noting that this project is still in progress, continually evolving. The initial
stages involved the conception and initiation of the photo project, followed by a
year-long process of taking a photo every day. While these two stages may seem to
encompass the entirety of the project, the author’s discoveries during this journey,
particularly the constant interplay between routine and charisma, indicate other-
wise. Therefore, the project extends beyond these initial stages, unravelling new lay-
ers of meaning and depth.
After the culmination of the year-long process of taking a photo a day, the idea
to showcase the project through an exhibition emerged, roughly around that time.
This notion sparked the initiation of searching for a suitable venue, and once found
it led to conceptualizing of how the exhibition would be presented within that spe-
cific space. Subsequently, the preparation process for the exhibition commenced, ac-
companied by the idea of an opening event. This event marked the beginning of the
exhibition, which lasted approximately two months. As the exhibition concluded,
the idea of its end materialized, prompting the subsequent process of dismantling
the exhibition and engaging in post-exhibition tasks. This, in turn, prompted the
idea of incorporating the project into a paper, and thus initiated the process of writ-
ing about it within the text. In summary, the stages involved in the project can be
outlined as follows:
Ars & Humanitas_2023_2_FINAL.indd 248 6. 02. 2024 13:36:22
Stella aSlani / everyday aeStheticS and the dichotomy Between routine and chariSma
249
1. The initial idea and initiation of the photo project.
2. The year-long process of taking a photo each day.
3. The idea and initial steps to showcase the photo project through an exhibition.
4. Searching and finding a suitable venue for the exhibition.
5. The idea and initiation of conceptualizing the exhibition’s presentation at the cho-
sen venue.
6. The preparation process for the exhibition.
7. The idea and initiation of the exhibition’s opening event.
8. The two-month duration of the exhibition itself, showcasing the photo project at
the venue.
9. The idea and initiation of concluding the exhibition.
10. Dismantling the exhibition and engaging in post-exhibition tasks.
11. The idea and initiation of incorporating the project into the paper.
12. Writing about the photo project in the paper.
At this point it is important to mention John Dewey’s influential work Art as Ex-
perience, published in 1934, which has served as a foundational source of inspiration
for scholars and practitioners in the field of everyday aesthetics. Dewey’s profound
exploration of “having an experience” underscores the notion that aesthetic experi-
ences can manifest in various facets of daily life, transcending traditional boundaries
and confined settings. According to Dewey, the aesthetic quality of an experience does
not hinge on a specific object or situation, but rather resides within the character of
the experience itself.
In the context of a photography project, this perspective implies that the organiza-
tion, execution, and reception of such a project can all be viewed as components of an
aesthetic experience. Just as Dewey emphasizes that aesthetics can permeate activities
as diverse as solving mathematical problems or enjoying a meal, the phases of a pho-
tography project – from planning and execution to audience reception – can be seen
as integral parts of the broader aesthetic encounter.
Likewise, Marina Abramović’s work in performance art extends well beyond
the actual performance itself. Her meticulous preparations leading up to a perfor-
mance hold paramount significance, as they contribute substantially to the overall
aesthetic experience. Abramović’s approach aligns with Dewey’s view that aesthet-
ics can be found not only in the final presentation but also in the process, prepara-
tion, and the entire journey leading up to the artistic moment. In this way, Dewey’s
philosophy provides a framework for understanding and appreciating the holistic
nature of artistic endeavours, where the boundaries between organization, prepa-
ration, execution, and reception blur, forming an inseparable tapestry of aesthetic
experience.
Ars & Humanitas_2023_2_FINAL.indd 249 6. 02. 2024 13:36:22
Stella aSlani / everyday aeStheticS and the dichotomy Between routine and chariSma
250
Turning the attention back to the aforementioned photography project, each of
the project’s stages, along with their respective substages and sub-substages, serves as a
compelling illustration of the blurred boundaries between routine and charisma. The
continuous transitioning between these two concepts is evident throughout the entire
project. As a result, the terms routine and charisma no longer adhere to a rigid dichot-
omy between everyday life and art. Instead, they merge, giving birth to a multitude of
states that encompass routine-charisma and charismatic-routine, each distinguished
by subtle nuances. Furthermore, this merging of routine and charisma instigates three
significant effects of the project:
1. Effect on the author’s life – while certain effects of the project on the author’s life
have been previously mentioned in this paper, it is important to acknowledge that
the true extent of these effects is challenging to quantify. Similar to the complex
nature of the stages, substages, and sub-substages, the impact on the author’s life
is vast and multifaceted. It has shaped and will continue to shape the author’s ex-
periences and perspectives. The project has likely influenced the author’s artistic
sensibilities, personal growth, and creative journey, leaving an indelible mark that
extends beyond the confines of the project itself.
2. Effect on the lives of the people who have:
• followed the process of the photo project via social media platforms and got
inspired by it – by providing a window into the project’s development, these
individuals were able to witness the artistic journey, the challenges faced,
and the creative breakthroughs achieved. For those who were inspired by the
Figure 1: Snapshot of an Instagram Mention/Comment Showing the Direct Impact
the Project Had in Inspiring @gardenstateglasswork.
Ars & Humanitas_2023_2_FINAL.indd 250 6. 02. 2024 13:36:22
Stella aSlani / everyday aeStheticS and the dichotomy Between routine and chariSma
251
project, it served as a catalyst for their own creative endeavours. The project’s
ability to capture routine and charisma in everyday life likely resonated with
them, encouraging them to explore and express their own unique perspec-
tives on the world around them.
• witnessed the project in the form of an exhibition, which in turn moved, in-
spired, or touched them and made them think and reflect upon their own
lives – by presenting the interplay between routine and charisma in everyday
life, the exhibition prompted viewers to contemplate their own lives and expe-
riences. It encouraged introspection and reflection, inviting them to examine
the beauty and significance of their own routines and moments of enchant-
ment. It moved beyond the boundaries of the art space, leaving a lasting im-
pact on the way individuals thought and interacted with their own lives.
Figure 2: Photo of the Impressions Written to the Author by the Visitors to the
Exhibition Showing the Impact the Project in the Form of an Exhibition Had on Them.
3. Effect on the paper at hand – the project itself served as a direct and significant in-
fluence on the current paper. It functions as a tangible and illustrative example of
the differentiation between routine and charisma, and the continual shifting and
blending of these two concepts. The project’s exploration of the interplay between
routine and charisma provides a rich foundation for the paper’s analysis and dis-
cussion of everyday aesthetics.
Ars & Humanitas_2023_2_FINAL.indd 251 6. 02. 2024 13:36:22
Stella aSlani / everyday aeStheticS and the dichotomy Between routine and chariSma
252
Indeed, the evolving nature of the project and the intricacies it encompasses make
it challenging to ascertain if the effects discussed thus far are exhaustive. The project,
initially appearing as a charismatic intervention in routine everyday life, reveals its
depth and complexity when examined closely. The breakdown of the project’s stages
and the exploration of its nuances shed light on the intricacies that challenge the no-
tion of a straightforward dichotomy between art and life.
By delving into the subtleties of the project, it becomes evident that the supposed
dichotomy between art and life is not as clear-cut as it initially seemed. The project blurs
the boundaries between routine and charisma, exposing the interplay and transitions be-
tween these concepts. This nuanced understanding disrupts the simplistic distinction be-
tween art and everyday life, prompting a deeper exploration of their interconnectedness.
Therefore, it is plausible to suggest that the effects discussed earlier might not en-
compass the entirety of the project’s impact. The evolving nature of the project and
its ability to reveal new layers of meaning and understanding indicate that there may
be additional effects that have yet to be fully explored or comprehended. The project’s
complexities challenge us to embrace the subtleties and embrace the evolving nature
of the relationship between art and life.
Conclusion
The introduction and exploration of terms such as everyday life, art, routine, and the
extraordinary within the field of everyday aesthetics have revealed that the dichotomy
between art and life is central to this discipline. While various approaches to bridging
this dichotomy have been proposed by everyday aesthetics theorists, the fundamental
question remains: is this dichotomy a genuine one or merely artificially imposed?
Drawing on the notions of routine and charisma as discussed by everyday
aesthetics theorists and Schopenhauer’s distinction between the beautiful and the
sublime, it becomes evident that even within the field of everyday aesthetics it is
difficult to completely separate art from everyday life. This interconnectedness is
further exemplified by the nuances observed in the photography project considered
in this text, specifically in its ability to oscillate between routine and charisma. Con-
sequently, this project not only impacted art itself, but also left a lasting impression
on the fabric of life.
Therefore, this paper suggests that future studies in everyday aesthetics should not
focus solely on routine or charisma, but rather explore the interactions between them
and more, such as routine within routine, charisma within routine, charisma within
charisma, and routine within charisma.5 By doing so, it becomes possible to move
5 It is worth noting that some contemporary theoreticians in the field of everyday aesthetics have
addressed this line of reasoning in their recent works. They either advocate for the inclusion of gradation
Ars & Humanitas_2023_2_FINAL.indd 252 6. 02. 2024 13:36:22
Stella aSlani / everyday aeStheticS and the dichotomy Between routine and chariSma
253
beyond the traditional opposition between art and everyday life, considering them as
two points on a continuum rather than as stark opposites.
By embracing the interplay of routine and charisma within everyday aesthetics,
the latter would not only move away from what Mandoki would classify as aesthet-
ics, since the aesthetics insists upon the separation between art and life, but also set
an example for other disciplines such as philosophy, science, and technology. These
fields have often emphasized their separation from life in their attempts to observe,
comprehend, and manipulate it. However, they may have overlooked the true nature
of the dichotomy they insist upon.
Rather than perpetuating a strict division, these disciplines could benefit from
recognizing the mutual interdependence and inseparability of art, life, philosophy, sci-
ence, and technology. Just as routine and charisma coexist and intertwine within eve-
ryday aesthetics, these areas of study can acknowledge their interconnectedness and
bridge the gap between theory and practice. By doing so, a more holistic understand-
ing of the world can be achieved, enabling a deeper comprehension and transforma-
tive potential that transcends artificial boundaries.
References
Dewey, J., Art as Experience, New York 2005.
Haapala, A., On the Aesthetics of the Everyday: Familiarity, Strangeness and the
Meaning of Place, The Aesthetics of Everyday Life, 2005, 39–56.
Haapala, A., The Everyday, Building, and Architecture: Reflections on the Ethos and
Beauty of our Built Surroundings, Cloud-Cuckoo-Land: International Journal of
Architectural Theory 22(36), 2017, 171–182.
Huizinga, J., Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play Element in Culture, Boston 1955.
Leddy, T., Experience of Awe: An Expansive Approach to Everyday Aesthet-
ics, Contemporary Aesthetics 13, 2015
Mandoki, K., Everyday Aesthetics: Prosaics, The Play of Culture and Social Identities,
Aldershot 2007.
Naukkarinen, O., What is ‘Everyday’ in Everyday Aesthetics?, Contemporary Aesthetics
11, 2013 < https://digitalcommons.risd.edu/liberalarts_contempaesthetics/vol11/
iss1/14/ 04 June 2023>
Saito, Y., Everyday Aesthetics, Oxford 2007.
(Leddy, 2015), or emphasize that the demarcation between routine and charisma, although prevalent
in discussions of the everyday, should not be perceived as rigid, static, or immovable (Haapala, 2017).
Nevertheless, the dichotomy between art and life continues to persist in the more recent works.
Ars & Humanitas_2023_2_FINAL.indd 253 6. 02. 2024 13:36:22
Stella aSlani / everyday aeStheticS and the dichotomy Between routine and chariSma
254
Saito, Y., Aesthetics of the Everyday, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2019
Schiller, F., On the Aesthetic Education of Man, New York 2004.
Schopenhauer, A., The World as Will and Representation, New York 1969.
Weber, M., On Charisma and Institution Building, Chicago 1968.
Everyday Aesthetics and the Dichotomy Between Routine and
Charisma
Keywords: everyday aesthetics, art, life, dichotomy, routine-charisma spectrum
Everyday aesthetics, at its core, is based on the supposed dichotomy between art and
life, considering life as something routine-like, and art as the breaking of the routine,
something charismatic. Different authors of everyday aesthetics use different words
to describe this dichotomy. For example, in his article “What is ‘Everyday’ in Every-
day Aesthetics?”, Ossi Naukkarinen simply uses everydayness and non-everyday-like,
while Arto Haapala, in his “On the Aesthetics of the Everyday: Familiarity, Strange-
ness, and the Meaning of Place” uses the terms familiarity and strangeness. The au-
thors also propose different ways of bridging this dichotomy. However, as the paper
shows, the real question is not how to bridge the dichotomy itself but rather whether
the dichotomy exists in the first place. Moreover, the paper suggests a change of direc-
tion in future investigations of everyday aesthetics, and focusing on the nuances that
exist on the routine-charisma and charismatic-routine spectrum, supported by aca-
demic research and the personal account of the paper’s author art project. Moreover,
the implications of this shift extend beyond the boundaries of everyday aesthetics.
Estetika vsakdanjega življenja ter dihotomija med rutino in
karizmo
Ključne besede: estetika vsakdanjega življenja, umetnost, življenje, dihotomija, spek-
ter rutine in karizme
Estetika vsakdanjega življenja v svojem bistvu temelji na domnevni dihotomiji
med umetnostjo in življenjem, pri čemer življenje obravnava kot nekaj rutinskega,
umetnost pa kot izstop iz rutine, kot nekaj karizmatičnega. Različni avtorji estetike
vsakdanjega življenja uporabljajo različne besede za opis te dihotomij. Ossi Naukka-
rinen na primer v članku »Kaj je ‘vsakdanje’ v estetiki vsakdanjosti« uporablja pre-
prosto besedi vsakdanjost in nevsakdanjost, Arto Haapala pa v članku »O estetiki vs-
akdanjosti: domačnost, tujost in pomen kraja« uporablja izraza domačnost in tujost.
Ars & Humanitas_2023_2_FINAL.indd 254 6. 02. 2024 13:36:22
Stella aSlani / everyday aeStheticS and the dichotomy Between routine and chariSma
255
Avtorja predlagata tudi različne načine za premostitev te dihotomije. Vendar pa, kot je
razvidno iz članka, pravo vprašanje ni, kako premostiti dihotomijo, temveč ali dihoto-
mija sploh obstaja. Poleg tega članek predlaga spremembo smeri prihodnjih raziskav
estetike vsakdanjega življenja in osredotočenje na odtenke, ki obstajajo na spektru
rutina–karizma in karizma–rutina, kar je podprto z akademskimi raziskavami in os-
ebnim pričevanjem avtorice članka o umetniškem projektu. Poleg tega posledice tega
premika presegajo meje estetike vsakdanjega življenja.
About the Author
Stella Aslani is a PhD candidate at the University of Ljubljana. Her current research is
centred around art, human nature, epistemology and ontology, with a strong emphasis
on critiques of contemporary society. She publishes scientific publications, as well as
poetry, dabbles in photography and organizes various conference.
Email: stella.aslani888@gmail.com
O avtorici
Stella Aslani je doktorska kandidatka na Univerzi v Ljubljani. Njeno trenutno razisko-
valno delo se osredotoča na umetnost, človeško naravo, epistemologijo in ontologijo
z močnim poudarkom na kritiki sodobne družbe. Objavlja znanstvene publikacije in
poezijo, ukvarja se s fotografijo in organizira različne konference.
E-naslov: stella.aslani888@gmail.com
Ars & Humanitas_2023_2_FINAL.indd 255 6. 02. 2024 13:36:22