Abstract
Theories of aesthetics have represented aesthetic object as a framed, distanced and contemplated individual piece to be appreciated. In particularly to be symbolized as pure, objects of appreciation must be approached with complete objectivity regardless of its function. In architecture, “purity” can be understood as the formal or structural elements visible, or pure of any ornament. But, in the philosophical-aesthetic sense, purity is of “disinterest” manner. Aesthetic concepts and values are “free” and “pure” in the Kantian sense that they are not derived from any priori grounds. This vision has been challenged by environmental and everyday aesthetics, in which they bring everyday environments and matters into consideration as possible objects of aesthetic appreciation. In this paper, I will discuss the importance of aesthetics in the dwelling sense and whether aesthetics is a matter of value in the reminiscent memory of the dweller. Moreover, question the ambiguous term “pure” in architecture and whether this term is correct in the dwellers sense.