 Recently there have been lively debates over the Deweyan tradition in the aesthetics of everyday life. Most of the contestants are inspired by Dewey’s valuation of everyday aesthetic experience but depart from him in various ways. Sherri Irvin (2008a) has argued that the fragmented character of everyday aesthetic experiences might, contra Dewey’s emphasis on consummation, be what gives them their distinctive quality. She goes so far as to assert that even scratching an itch can be aesthetically appreciated (Irvin 2008b). Glenn Parsons and Allen Carlson (2008) contend that, although Dewey’s aesthetic theory may seem particularly appropriate to appreciating everyday objects since we interact with them in a more intimate and multi-sensory way than with art objects, this approach, shared by Korsmeyer (1999), Brady (2005), Leddy (2005, 2012), Shusterman (2006, 2012), and Saito (2007), fails to honor traditional distinctions between aesthetic and mere “bodily” pleasures. They might have also mentioned Glenn Kuehn (2005) who takes an explicitly Deweyan approach to the aesthetics of food, and Katya Mandoki (2007) who takes Dewey as one source of her everyday aesthetics. They think it wrong that the pleasures of taking a bath, for example, could be considered aesthetic. Rather, the objects of everyday aesthetics should be appreciated mainly for their functional beauty (pleasures of the proximal senses are not aesthetic, although they may still add some value to the overall experience), and knowledge of the function of everyday objects is required for their appropriate appreciation. Brian Soucek (2009) and Christopher Dowling (2010) raise criticisms against everyday aesthetics along similar lines. However, Kalle Puolakka (2014, 2015, 2017, 2018) defends a Deweyan approach to everyday aesthetics drawing on Dewey’s theory of imagination and on recent work on Dewey and moral imagination.