 As stated at the beginning of this entry, everyday aesthetics was first proposed as a way of accounting for those aesthetically charged dimensions of our lives that had not been adequately addressed by art-centered aesthetics. However, early works of everyday aesthetics, such as given by Saito (2007), are criticized for a rather outdated and overly restrictive characterization of so-called art-centered aesthetics. The presumed distinguishing conditions of art-aesthetics, such as a relatively clear frame, privileging higher sense, authorial identity, stable identity of the object, and the spectator mode of experience, are no longer applicable to many examples of art today. Consequently, the critics urge everyday aesthetics to go beyond simply providing a venue to enumerate those aesthetic dimensions of everyday life that had previously been overlooked and to provide a conceptual foundation. In particular, they advocate conceiving everyday aesthetics as a continuation of aesthetics discourse that had previously been focused on art (the view variously characterized as a weak formulation, continuistic pole, extraordinarist stance, or monolithist model), rather than as something distinct and separate from art aesthetics (a strong formulation, discontinuistic pole, familiarity stance, or pluralist model) (see Dowling 2010; Ratiu 2013; Iannilli 2016; Matteucci 2016 for a clear and helpful “mapping” and “nomenclature” of these strands of everyday aesthetics).