Open Access is an initiative that aims to make scientific research freely available to all. To date our community has made over 100 million downloads. It’s based on principles of collaboration, unobstructed discovery, and, most importantly, scientific progression. As PhD students, we found it difficult to access the research we needed, so we decided to create a new Open Access publisher that levels the playing field for scientists across the world. How? By making research easy to access, and puts the academic needs of the researchers before the business interests of publishers.
We are a community of more than 103,000 authors and editors from 3,291 institutions spanning 160 countries, including Nobel Prize winners and some of the world’s most-cited researchers. Publishing on IntechOpen allows authors to earn citations and find new collaborators, meaning more people see your work not only from your own field of study, but from other related fields too.
To purchase hard copies of this book, please contact the representative in India:
CBS Publishers & Distributors Pvt. Ltd.
www.cbspd.com
|
customercare@cbspd.com
With the long period that students spend on the university campus, it becomes a familiar part of their daily routine. Many parts of the campus transform into mere functional spaces accommodating students’ activities. It is therefore a challenge to identify and investigate a suitable framework for studying the aesthetical value and attractiveness of these familiar parts. It is also questioned whether there is a relationship between students’ specialization and their appreciation of the aesthetical value and attractiveness of these familiar spaces. Using the framework of everyday aesthetics, this research investigated the students’ appreciation of the aesthetical value and attractiveness of the Engineering Campus of the University of Bahrain. The study revealed that familiar spaces on the university campus have different levels of aesthetical value that affects their attractiveness. Familiar outdoor spaces proved significant in this regard more than buildings. The study also found differences between architecture and engineering students’ appreciation of everyday aesthetics in familiar spaces and their attractiveness. The study is the first to develop a theoretical framework for the use of everyday aesthetics to investigate the aesthetics and attractiveness of familiar spaces at university campuses and opens the door for further future research.
Department of Architecture, Antalya Bilim University, Antalya, Turkey
*Address all correspondence to: a.mohammed@antalya.edu.tr
1. Introduction
Aesthetics of the everyday life [1] or everyday aesthetics (EA) [2] appeared at the turn of the 21st century as a sub-discipline of aesthetics that made a shift in aesthetics thinking towards the objects and practices of everyday life [3, 4, 5]. It has been the subject matter of fierce arguments among aestheticians in the last decades. Some believe it has been originated in western aesthetics thought before the 19th century [6]. Others see it as a reaction to the concentration of aesthetic philosophies on art objects. It was thought that the separation between aesthetic experience and everyday life experiences was not justified [7]. It was also thought that the objective part of the aesthetic experience should be extended to include all life aspects. Aesthetics theoreticians like Parsons, and Downey argue that EA can be considered within the frameworks of the aesthetics of art [2]. In this regard, Berleant introduces the concept of aesthetic engagement as the main framework for understanding art experience. Since people are always engaged in their everyday life, the same art engagement mechanisms apply to the aesthetical components of everyday life [8]. At the same time, Uriko Saito, Richard Shusterman, and Arto Haapala argue that art frameworks cannot be applied to natural beauty and social activities [2]. Carlson tried to decrease the gap between the abstract disinterestedness of art experience and the active engagement of EA through the understanding of meanings and concepts of EA experience. This cognitive approach depends on the details, relationships, activities, and sensory experiences of everyday life [9]. Within such an approach, landscape elements either hard or soft, urban street furniture and family relationships can all have their special aesthetics experience [10]. This experience can be found in all aspects of everyday life [11, 12]. The appreciation of aesthetics in all these diversified contents relates to the daily life practices. It needs the search for interest and specialty to discover their hidden aesthetics potential [2]. Some of the factors that can be used in this regard include grandeur, loftiness, magnificence, and expression [6]. It needs to be remembered that whatever these objects and activities are, and whatever are their aesthetical judgements, they are always parts and reflections of their social and cultural settings [6].
The significance of EA stems from its ability to improve the way how people look to the ordinary things in their life. This is an important drive for improving the quality of life and the level of public attitudes towards aesthetics [2]. The experience of EA is complex and immersive. It is open to everybody in the community, and it is a way for giving more value for life [13]. EA opened wide doors of new interpretations for the meaning of art and aesthetics and their connections with everyday life [14].
Mandoki defines EA as “the array of behaviors, values, and preferences related to human sensibility”. She agrees with John Dewey’s argument that EA experience depends on the rhythms, energies, and practices of the everyday [15].
Therefore, EA can be defined as the everyday aesthetics embedded in the values, activities, practices, and experiences that are positively appreciated by a community within its socio-cultural and spatio-temporal settings.
EA emphasizes the everydayness and ordinariness of objects, activities, and values that form the contents of everyday life. These everyday contents can be figured out as mundane, regular, repetitive, and unstructured [5]. But at the same time, EA also does not ignore the extraordinariness in these objectives and values. It keeps a continuous and dynamic relationship between the two [4].
Saito broadened the space of aesthetics to include the appreciation of all sensuous and audiovisual experiences of any activity, phenomenon, or object [16]. This includes all aspects of the everyday life that form the subject matter of the everyday aesthetics and determine the realm of its application, experience, and appreciation. Within this huge collection of life events and objects, it is thought to differentiate between those parts that are designed and effected as works of art and the normal routine everyday parts. Felski provided some characteristics for EA like habituation, repetition, convention, and spontaneity [17].
Melchionne added other characteristics for the everydayness of these things. They include ongoing, common, and active [18].
On the other hand, there is a need to establish a clear and well-defined way for how to examine the EA experience in real life. Despite the extensive discussions of art and aesthetics theoreticians on the relationships and differences between traditional philosophies of art and EA, little could be found on the scientific empirical means of EA applications. While a lot can be found on such means in visual arts and architecture for example, it is still gloomy and faint within EA. This introduces a serious challenge for the theory and its relevance to both aesthetics and everyday life. Several questions are raised here about a comprehensive framework linking the components of EA and its characteristics with its processes, measures, determinants, and the final aesthetics judgements. A thorough investigation has found that the studies in experimental psychology, psychology of aesthetics, industrial design, and even aesthetics of web design provided a lot on the specific variables and measures, and the processes and procedures of measuring EA in the landscape, urban design, product design, and internet web design. Unfortunately, these studies do not form a complete framework and theory, and much work is still needed to be done in this regard. These investigations are summarized in Table 1. They provide a clear, simplified and straight forward approach for EA.
Saito in her discussion for the relationship between aesthetics of art and EA argued that EA elements include everyday activities, phenomena, and objects [16]. At the same time, Mandok added behaviors which are parts of activities, values which can be parts of phenomena, and preferences which are judgements of certain experiences and are parts of the appreciation of aesthetics [15]. Previous discussions above showed the agreement of EA supporters on not to include art works because they are not part of the everyday life. But this argument can be refuted by considering public art works in the streets and urban spaces. And the issue of architecture and urban design and street furniture of urban streets strongly challenge this argument. In addition, it is still not clear how to define the boundaries of the elements of Saito and Mandok.
Some scholars tried to give some descriptive qualities with which the elements of EA can be recognized and defined. Flexi proposed that for anything to be considered within the domain of EA it should be characterized with habituation, convention, and repetition [17]. Melchionne added that it should be ongoing, common, active, and spontaneous [18]. Then Ratiu introduced that it should be also described as mundane [5]. Although these characteristics can look fine at the first glance; many questions arise about their exact meaning and their theoretical boundaries, not to mention the measures that can be used to examine them empirically. This is in addition to the fact that they are still scattered between the theoretical and empirical studies of scholars from different disciplines without a consensus that can put them all in one mold.
Leaving the dilemma of the definitions and characteristics of the elements of EA waiting for more analysis and discussions, the need arises for understanding the processes of EA experience. Aesthetics is all about experiencing and appreciating aesthetical works and judging the level of pleasure in this experience. Berghman and Hekkert studied aesthetical experience and its processes, principles, and objectives in industrial design which represents a supply line for everyday life objects [19]. They argued that the aesthetical experience goes through 2 important processes, perception, and sensation before coming to the aesthetical pleasure which is the final judgement. But the argument on which comes first, perception or sensation still needs further consideration. In the field of environmental aesthetics as outlined by Berleant and Carlson, they argued that engagement is an important process necessary for the appreciation of environmental aesthetics which is part of EA [23]. This engagement precedes the state of aesthetical judgement and pleasure.
Criteria, indicators, and measures are the tools usually used for the evaluation of both the subject matter of the aesthetics experience in addition to the subjective, cognitive, and psychological aspects of the experiencing people. Tosaki in his search for a theory of rhythm in the visual arts presented it as a tool for composition for the composer and as a tool for measurement for the listener or the viewer [20]. He discussed how rhythm produces different layers of audiovisual effects. He argued for rhythm itself to be a schema despite the complexity it has in composition and in schematic presentation in the perception of the audience. Therefore, it is argued to consider rhythm itself as a general indicator of aesthetics quality that produces different perceptual schemata or schema representations like flow, repetition, movement, mobility, fluidity, and typicality. Following, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy edited by Zalta introduced 11 values that create the aesthetics quality and can be considered as general indicators for it [6]. They include grandeur, loftiness, magnificence, character, taste, dignity, quality, and expression, and provide the chance for the development of different measures that practically and empirically would help to assess the aesthetics quality. Finally, Gao and Songfu in their study for the aesthetic appreciation of urban landscape in London concluded 8 indicators for landscape aesthetics [22]. They are complexity, imageability, visual proportion, cognitive object, naturalness, historicity, and diachronic variability. These important qualitative indicators of the aesthetical quality are inherently part of the aesthetical entity. As part of the aesthetical experience, they create schemata representation in the cognition of the audience. These schemata representations participate in the aesthetics appreciation process and the generation of the aesthetics pleasure. Observing these schemata as measures in the aesthetical entity would therefore insure the creation of more satisfactory aesthetical environment.
It is important to point out that these determinants of EA represent the objective part related to the aesthetics subject matter or the components of the EA. This means that they are measures for the aesthetical quality of the aesthetics material. As such, there is a need to link them to the indicators of EA discussed above where each indicator will be connected to its suitable measures. Attention should be paid to differentiate them from the schemata representations that are subjective and relate to the experiencing audience. Blijlevens et al., in their work for developing a scale for aesthetic pleasure in designed artifacts, listed 40 measures covering a wide range of aesthetics qualities (Table 1) [27]. At the same time, Jacobsen and Beudt found that aesthetics pleasure in the visual arts and the built environment is determined by 10 different factors (Table 1) [21]. More recently, Sauer and Sonderegger used another set of six determinants to study visual aesthetics satisfaction of an everyday product (Table 1) [28]. The list of all these determinants or measures that affect aesthetics pleasure is quite long. Some of the measures are repeated between groups and some others look subjective. Emphasizing what have been mentioned on previous factors and variables, these also need to be well defined and delineated. Not to mention that certain determinants can be used for certain aesthetical settings. More importantly, some of these measures are broader than limits of a measure and they need several measurements to give right results. This is the case of attractiveness in the list of Sauer and Sonderegger [28].
7. Attractiveness in the built environment- a tool of aesthetics appreciation
In aesthetics, attractiveness is a state of relationship between the quality of objective aesthetical environment and its responsive personal perception. Generally, attractiveness can be defined as the state of being pleasing and arousing interest and engagement [24]. This relates to the objective qualities of the environment. On the other hand, it refers to the strength and quality of pleasurable emotional response towards this environment [25]. Numerous studies on the urban environment, urban psychology, psychology of design, and psychology of aesthetics dealt with the issue of attractiveness, some from the subjective personal side and others from the objective settings of the environment. Wahlberg used 35 urban attractiveness measures for the study of town center attractiveness in Sweden [26]. Functional elements, urban design elements, and architectural elements were included in the measurement process. Adkins et al. provided another extensive list of aesthetic measures for the study of the attractiveness of urban walking environment [29]. It also covered different features of the built environment like roadways, street furniture, and green structure. In the same direction, Bolleter used nine variables for the measurement of attractiveness of public open spaces. They included walkability, shading, water features, lighting, sporting facilities, flora, and fauna [30]. These studies and the like do not look at attractiveness as an indicator of EA within which these urban environments are components. They lack the vision of the comprehensive approach outlined above and merely look at the urban environment as a functional machine. Looking at the urban environment through the proposed comprehensive framework establishes a strong relationship between the different components and their everyday life settings, features, and aesthetical experience. This framework provides a better chance for the study of attractiveness on the university campus as part of the everyday urban environment.
Many universities around the world pay great attention to the aesthetics qualities of their campuses and spend huge budgets for this purpose. The reason behind this is that the aesthetics quality of the campus is the best way to build its character. This is sometimes done through the installation of artworks that can attract the attention of the students and visitors. Aesthetical quality of the campus can also be created by the architectural design of the buildings and the urban design of places and spaces. This is in addition to landscape design as well [7]. The aestheticization of the campus enhances its attractiveness and improves its education environment [5]. This attractiveness exerts an important effect on the students to decide where to meet and entertain, what activities to do and how, their social behavior and interaction, and their sport activity [4]. attractiveness strongly affects the students’ attitude towards the university and their sense of belonging [31]. Attractiveness is also influential in attracting and affecting the staff and the visitors [32]. Zhao et al. studied the attractiveness of campus landscape using indicators like visual forms of the landscape [33]. Increasing vegetation coverage and natural waterscape on campus would improve both aesthetic quality and recreational preference. Landscape, therefore, has a strong attractiveness for the students and deeply affects their academic and social development. They referred to aesthetics pleasure as a drive of attractiveness that encourages the students to spend more time in the university and to improve their academic and social conduct [34]. They also made a link between aesthetics appreciation of landscape design of the campus and outdoor recreation activities of the students and proposed several measures for attractive landscapes like shapes, colors, and spatial arrangements. No reference was made to EA or its applications. As a result of this shortcoming, they argued that recreation activities have a preference for aesthetics appreciation and therefore their hardscape design requirements have preference for landscape aesthetics requirements. This highlights the need of introducing EA as a design framework to improve the quality of everyday life where functionality does not mean decreasing the aesthetics quality. There is a need to introduce aesthetics in the curriculum to enhance aesthetics thinking and behavior of the students [35]. This would make a shift in the students’ understanding of attractiveness dimension of their university campus. The urban environment of the university campus represents the everyday life atmosphere for the students. To what extent this everyday environment is considered attractive for the students is a problem that needs to be subjected to empirical examination. As it has been considered before, attractiveness is an indicator of EA that represents the tool for measuring the appreciation of the aesthetical quality. It helps to understand the aesthetical environment and its relationship with the users. As far as research methods are concerned, the study of the aesthetics experience and appreciation of university students for their campus can only be possible and practical by dividing the campus into different zones according to spatial or functional differentiation. The everyday life activities inside a university campus are numerous and they happen on daily bases in same places and spaces with the same persons for a long period of time. They include lessons in the classes, labs, auditoriums, and open spaces. All these functions fulfill the conditions of everyday aesthetics as outlined in the above framework.
9. EA in Engineering Campus, University of Bahrain
The Engineering Campus (EC) of the University of Bahrain (UOB) was established in 1965 in Isa Town and gradually it accommodated all faculties of the university (Figure 1). It continued until 1987 when a new modern and large campus was established in Skhair 16 km to the southwest. All faculties moved to the new campus except the engineering faculty which continued in Isa Town until recently. The campus’ architecture reflects 20th-century modern contemporary style (Figure 2). The landscaping is very poor with many areas left with bare untreated soil. Pavements, sidewalks, and shading elements are old-fashioned and outdated (Figure 3). Softscape includes large old trees of different types and palm trees with small areas of grass and shrubs (Figure 4). Some works of art and architectural models are temporarily placed through the campus at the end of semesters when students of architecture and interior design finish their projects (Figure 5).
Figure 1.
University of Bahrain, EC Isa Town, master plan showing Bashayer Cafeteria in blue in the middle.
10. Methodology for measuring EA and attractiveness in EC, UOB
10.1 Variables of measurement
In search of a suitable means to examine the attractiveness of the EC at UOB, there was a need to simplify the general EA framework as presented in Table 1 outlined above. This was necessary due to the level of existing aesthetics knowledge and awareness of the students. The simplified framework presented in Table 2. A physical object was thought to be more easily perceived by the students as EA object than activities or phenomena. It was decided to study Bashayer Cafeteria, its building, and the space in front of it. EA characteristics and processes apply to this building and its space. From the measures of EA cognitive object, historicity, and rhythm were used. The schema representations of these measures would be easily perceived by the students. A group of EA pleasure determinants was chosen including attractiveness. Direct, simple, and clear measures of these determinants will thence be used in the questionnaire given to the students.
Elements of EA
Characteristics/conditions of EA elements
Processes of EA experience
Measures of EA
Schema representation
Determinants of aesthetics pleasure
Objects
Ongoing
Sensation
Cognitive object
Elements-environment
Usability
Common
Perception
Atmosphere-landscape
Attractiveness
Active
Judgment
Historicity
Sense of atmosphere
Quality
Spontaneity
Rhythm
Flow
Symmetry
Habituation
Repetition
Proportion
Repetition
Movement
Color
Convention
Typicality
Form
Table 2.
simplified framework of EA applied to the study of EC at UOB.
10.2 The object: Bashayer Cafeteria
Bashayer cafeteria is a small humble and minimal single space single floor building (it will be referred to as a “building” hereunder) that was constructed temporarily to provide food and beverages services for the students and the staff. The building has a wooden structure with rectangle plan and pitched roof (Figure 6).
Figure 6.
Form of Bashayer Cafeteria.
The structure rests on bare soil with large trees around and concrete pavements leading to it and providing setting areas with tables and chairs for the students. Everything in the building and the surrounding space is quite spontaneous without any indication of visual or art design or any planned settings. The only different thing in this setting is the color of its main façade which is bright navy blue (Figure 7). An interior partition has also the same color that distinguished it from the white color of the whole interior space around (Figure 8).
Figure 7.
Bashayer Cafeteria main entrance and front space.
Figure 8.
Bashayer Cafeteria interior.
The space in front of the cafeteria and around it (it will be referred to as “space” hereunder) is an ordinary un-designed space distinguished by large old trees (Figure 9). A paved area with interlocking concrete paver blocks is provided with plastic tables and chairs for the use of students. These tables and chairs can normally be found on the bare soil anywhere around the cafeteria. The cafeteria opens at 8:00 am and closes at 18:00 pm with the end of the academic day. No restriction of any kind is imposed on the use of the cafeteria or the space around it. The cafeteria and its space are always busy with male and female students from all levels and specializations. Some social and cultural activities are organized from time to time. For the special mixture of the Bahraini society of nationals and expatriates and Sunni and Shiite Muslims, it is normal to find students of different ethnic, social, religious, and cultural backgrounds. No discrimination of any kind can be found in all campuses of UOB. Bashayer cafeteria is no exception.
Figure 9.
The space in front of Bashayer Cafeteria showing its naturalness with softscape and hardscape.
10.3 Students’ sample
Quasi-experimental research was used to study the aesthetical experience of the students at Bashayer Cafeteria. The aim was to investigate their appreciation for its EA and to measure its attractiveness.
Non-probabilistic convenience sampling was used to determine the sample of the students participating in the research [36]. Despite the disadvantages of this sampling, it was used to suit the limited resources of the research team. This is in addition to the fact that the main purpose of the research was to arrive at tentative conclusions that would be subject to further testing in the future. The size of the sample was 60 students used randomly from the total number of students in the college of engineering which was 4200 students. This number represents 14% of the engineering students which is quite an acceptable sample size [36]. No consideration was given to differences of any kind between students in the sample including gender, academic level, or cultural, economic, and social backgrounds.
10.4 The experiment
Likert questionnaire was used with a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 is the lowest and 5 is the highest. The main purpose of the questionnaire was to study the EA in the building and space and to measure their attractiveness. The questionnaire included general questions on the specialization of the students and their knowledge of aesthetics and EA. The main variables used in the questionnaire are presented in Table 3. The experiment took place in the space on the same day to avoid spontaneous remission of the students or any change in their attitudes. The experiment included students in the different specializations of the faculty of engineering and architecture students. It was intended to arrive at equal number of students in each group of students. These two sample groups were independent with no relationship or influence between the subjects in each sample. The students in each sample were randomly chosen from the population of engineering and architecture students.
Eng. students
Arch. students
Variable
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
df
t
p
Everyday aesthetics knowledge
1.87
1.22
4.20
0.81
58
−8.72
0.000
Building aesthetics significance
1.63
1.03
4.27
0.69
58
−11.60
0.000
Building color
2.73
1.41
4.13
1.04
58
−4.37
0.000
Building material
2.83
1.58
4.00
0.98
58
−3.44
0.001
Building texture
2.50
1.46
4.10
0.80
58
−5.27
0.000
Building height
3.17
1.53
3.83
0.87
58
−2.07
0.043
Building everyday aesthetics
3.10
1.37
3.77
0.86
58
−2.26
0.028
Building attractiveness
1.87
1.22
4.27
0.69
58
−9.35
0.000
Space aesthetics significance
3.80
1.37
4.20
0.81
58
−1.38
0.174
Space landscape aesthetics
3.80
1.37
4.07
1.01
58
−0.86
0.396
Space softscape aesthetics
4.10
1.16
4.57
0.57
58
−1.99
0.052
Space hardscape aesthetics
3.80
1.37
4.00
1.14
58
−0.61
0.543
Space attractiveness
3.87
1.38
4.30
0.65
58
−1.55
0.126
Table 3.
Independent samples t-test comparing engineering and architecture students for different variables (N = 60).
11. Results and analysis
The results of the survey were analyzed using statistical Independent Samples t- Test using IBM SPSS Statistics version 26. Two hypotheses were presumed. The Null hypothesis (H0) assumes that there was no difference between the means of architecture students and engineering students (H0: μ section 1 (Engineering students) = μ section 2 (Architecture students) or the difference of the means is equal to zero). The alternative hypothesis assumed that there were differences between the means of architecture and engineering students (H1: μ section 1 (Engineering students) ≠ μ section 2 (Architecture students) or the difference of the means is not equal to zero). μ1 and μ2 are the population mean for section 1 and section 2 respectively.
11.1 General observations
Table 3 shows the means of students’ evaluations of their EA knowledge and their appreciation of EA and attractiveness of Bashayer cafeteria. Engineering students were far beyond architecture students in their knowledge of EA. Engineering students also gave less appreciation for the building EA and attractiveness compared to architecture students. In contrast, engineering students’ appreciation for the space came closer to that of the architecture students. Their appreciation of the attractiveness of the space came also greater than that of the building and closer to architecture students. It is also noticed that the standard deviation of architecture students is less than 1 in all the variables except building color, space landscape aesthetics, and space hardscape aesthetics. This explains that their evaluations were closer to the means. On the opposite, the standard deviation of engineering students is greater than 1 in all the variables which explains that their evaluations where further apart from the means
11.2 Testing the hypothesis
Table 3 shows the results of t-test comparing variables of interest between students of engineering and architecture. In other words, there was a statistically significant difference between the means of engineering and architecture students’ evaluations of EA knowledge and EA attractiveness of Bashayer cafeteria.
12. Conclusion
EA has been getting increased attention and proved greater importance in the analysis and modeling of aesthetics in real life. This research aimed to provide a simplified model for EA that can be easily understood and used especially by architecture researchers. The dilemma of theoretical and philosophical discussions between contemporary aestheticians and art philosophers has been going on for long without providing well-defined framework for the practical and empirical analysis of EA in real-life settings like architecture and urban design. Disciplines like experimental psychology, psychology of aesthetics, and industrial design have been dealing with a different aspect of EA more precisely and practically but without considering the general framework of EA. The proposed comprehensive model benefited from the works of both sides and brought several of their factors together. Still, this model is in needs of further examination and development to clarify and fix the connections and interrelationships between its parts. The model also provides a chance for the development of a well-articulated theory of EA. The case study of the EC of UOB proved the importance of the model for the study of attractiveness on university campuses but within a defined framework of EA. Although both architecture and engineering had approximately the same frequency of daily use of the cafeteria and its space, the results of their appreciation of EA came totally different. Engineering students were very little aware of building’s aesthetics. Engineering students rated the attractiveness of the building below average while the attractiveness of the space came above average. On the contrary, architecture students show considerable awareness of aesthetics and EA and its importance. This can be referred to as the special visual and aesthetical education and training they have in the department of interior design and architecture. The research opens the door for future research to develop EA and to provide the necessary details for the study of attractiveness within it.
Conflict of interest
The author declares no conflict of interest
Thanks
The author would like to express his special thanks to the architect Mariam Haider for her distinguished role in the research team. Thanks also to architects Fatima Sayed and Amani Jabbar for their work in the research team.
References
1.Yuedi L, Carter C, editors. Aesthetics of Everyday Life: East and West. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing; 2014. pp. vii-xvii
2.Leddy T. Everyday aesthetics and happiness. In: Yuedi L, Carter C, editors. Aesthetics of Everyday Life. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing; 2014. pp. 26-47
3.Stefano ED, Lehtinen S. Everyday Aesthetics: European Perspectives. Introduction. ESPES Journal. 2021;2021:10
4.Leddy T. A Deweyan approach to the Dilemma of everyday aesthetics. Paris. European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy. 2021;13(1):1-15. http://journals.openedition.org/ejpap/2273
5.Ratiu DE. Everyday Aesthetic Experience: Explorations by a Practical Aesthetics. Los Angeles: NSU Press; 2017. pp. 22-54
6.Zalta E. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [Internet]. 2015. https://plato.stanford.edu/index.html
7.Berleant A. Transformations in art eesthetics. In: Yuedi L, Carter C, editors. Aesthetics of Everyday Life. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing; 2014. pp. 2-13
8.Berleant A. Art and Engagement. Philadelphia. Temple: University Press; 1991
9.Carlson A. The dilemma of everyday aesthetics. In: Yuedi L, Carter C, editors. Aesthetics of Everyday Life. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing; 2014. pp. 48-64
10.Erzen A. The found Avant-Garde. In: Yuedi L, Carter C, editors. Aesthetics of Everyday Life. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing; 2014. pp. 115-123
11.Saito Y. Everyday aesthetics in the Japanese tradition. In: Yuedi L, Carter C, editors. Aesthetics of Everyday Life. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing; 2014. pp. 145-164
12.Wang Q. The transition of aesthetics in China and a new paradigm of living aesthetics. In: Yuedi L, Carter C, editors. Aesthetics of Everyday Life. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing; 2014. pp. 173-180
13.Davies S et al. A Companion to Aesthetics (Blackwell Companions to Philosophy). 2nd ed. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell; 2009. pp. 136-139
14.Stefano ED, Lehtinen S. Everyday aesthetics: European perspectives. ESPES Journal. 2021;2021:10
15.Mandoki K. The third tear in everyday aesthetics. Contemporary Aesthetics. 2010;8:Article4
16.Saito Y. Everyday Aesthetics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007
17.Felski R. Everyday aesthetics. The Minnesota Review. 2009;71-72:171-179
18.Melchionne K. The definition of everyday aesthetics. Contemporary Aesthetics. 2013;11
19.Berghman M, Hekkert P. Towards a unified model of aesthetic pleasure in design. New Design Psychology. 2017
20.Tosaki E. Rhythm as schema. In: Bolt B, Colman F, Jones G, Woodward A, editors. Search of the Mature Theory of Rhythm in Visual Art. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing; 2007
21.Jacobsen T, Beudt S. Stability and variability in aesthetic experience: A review. Frontiers in Psychology. 2017;8:143
22.Gao S, Liu S. Exploration and analysis of the aesthetic cognitive schema of contemporary Western Urban Landscapes. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021;18:10
23.Berleant A, Carlson A. The Aesthetics of Human Environments. Peterborough: Broadview Press; 2007
24.Dictionary.com [internet]. Available at: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/attractiveness#:∼:text=Definition%20of%20attractiveness,judged%20on%20quality%20and%20attractiveness.
25.Giese J, Malkewitz K, Orth U, Henderson P. Advancing the aesthetic middle principle: Trade-offs in design attractiveness and strength. Journal of Business Research. 2014;67:1154-1161
26.Wahlberg O. Small town centre attractiveness: Evidence from Sweden. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management. 2016;44:465-488. DOI: 10.1108/IJRDM-08-2014-01
27.Blijlevens J et al. The aesthetic pleasure in design scale: The development of a scale to measure aesthetic pleasure for designed artifacts. American Psychological Association. 2017;11:86
28.Sauer J, Sonderegger A. Visual aesthetics and user experience: A multiple-session experiment. International Journal of Human - Computer Studies. 2022;2022:165
29.Adkins A, Dill J, Luhr G, Neal M. Unpacking walkability: Testing the influence of urban design features on perceptions of walking environment attractiveness. Journal of Urban Design. 2012;17:499-510
30.Bolleter J. Living suburbs for Living Streams: How urban design strategies can enhance the amenity provided by Living Stream orientated Public Open Space. Journal of Urban Design. 2018;23:518-543
31.Web Editor, University of Berkeley (2015) Does campus beauty matter? Issue: July 2015. (https://universitybusiness.com/author/clayton-admin/)
32.Stathaki E. Higher education: Campuses with elevated aesthetics. Architecture. 2016. Available at: https://www.wallpaper.com/gallery/architecture/higher-education-campuses-with-elevated-aesthetics
33.Zhao J, Luo P, Wang R, Cai Y. Correlations between aesthetic preferences of river and landscape characters. Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management. 2013;21(2):123-132
34.Wang R, Jiang W, Lu T. Landscape characteristics of university campus in relation to aesthetic quality and recreational preference. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 2021;2021:66
35.Gao Y. The cultivation of aesthetic value and aesthetic ability in college art education. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research (ASSEHR). 2018;300:61-64
36.Neuman WL. Basics of Social Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon; 2007
Written By
Abdurrahman Mohamed
Submitted: 29 July 2022Reviewed: 05 September 2022Published: 18 October 2022
Open access peer-reviewed chapter
