After examining the aesthetic dimensions of the home (2005), everyday life and holidays (2006), the body and clothing (2007), bread (2008), game (2009), Eros (2010), the garden (2011), craft (2013), space ( 2014), the media (2015), within the poject Traditional aesthetic culture, the participants of the symposium are invited to now focus their attention on the problem of the place and meaning of traditional categories of “beautiful” and “ugly” in both traditional as well as modern and contemporary aesthetic culture and, also in traditional, modern and contemporary art. In so far investigated the dimensions of aesthetic culture in our symposia, the issue of the prevailing aesthetic and artistic value was sporadically treated. However, based on knowledge of significant and very indicative changes in the place of individual aesthetic and artistic values and aesthetic, i.e. philosophical categories in the history of the West (category of “truth” above all), and with an insight into the contemporary state of permeation or the crisis and scattering of aesthetic, artistic, moral, cognitive and other values, it turns out that the adequate systematic study of these processes is necessary. This research is not only theoretically interesting, because on the basis of its results, i.e. based on knowledge of the historical and currently changing position of “beautiful”, “ugly” and other values in the world of aesthetic and art questions about the type, being, values, achievements and prospects of contemporary aesthetic and artistic culture and culture in general (enjoyable, judgemental, critical, research, creative, conformist, subversive …) can be answered. Faster, deeper and more dramatic changes in contemporary societies, as well as the position of the aesthetic and artistic “constants” and “variables” in the elite, mass and folk cultures, subcultures and countercultures, a new wave of cultural diffusions and acculturation, mixing of local and migrant cultures and values, again show that the aesthetic is not “merely” aesthetic and that art is not “just” art, but an important indicator, even the actor, of local, regional and global developments, ethno-nationalist and globalist tendencies in contemporary cultures and societies and a signal of turbulences in identity constructs.