 Those who support the continuity model are specifically concerned to provide a basis for intersubjectivity and normativity for everyday aesthetics by referencing these features that support aesthetics discourse in general. Without such a framework, the worry is that everyday aesthetics may degenerate into a totally subjective, laissez faire affair which would render the entire project trivial. Unless we presuppose the possibility of a sensus communis, that is, communicability though not necessarily commonality, which makes sharing and understanding the other’s experience possible, we are locked into a subjective, solipsistic silo. Furthermore, they point out that the monadic characterization of everyday aesthetics within the general aesthetics discourse is not conducive to fruitfully accounting for the ways in which everyday life and art interact and form a continuous, ongoing flux of a person’s embodied experience of the lived world. Popular and socially engaged forms of art permeate people’s everyday life more than ever and there is no reason not to consider experiencing them as a pervasive dimension of their lived world. Ultimately, the nature of art is open and dynamic and is very much an integral part of people’s life, and everyday aesthetics is better served by considering the continuity between art and everyday. In other words, the initial reactionary mode of everyday aesthetics needs to be recast as a proactive mode that addresses the totality of our aesthetic engagement with the world, which includes art, nature, and everyday (Ratiu 2013; Potgieter 2017). Although approaching the issue from a different angle, another possibility is to develop Rancière’s distribution of the sensible and explore what is deemed aesthetically relevant within a specific cultural/historical/social context. For the consideration of the regime of the sensible, the presumed distinction between art and life becomes irrelevant (Vihalem 2018).