The Vitruvian Triad of Firmitas, Utilitas and Venustas has long guided the architectural thinking process. While utilitas and firmitas are comprehended as scientific and objective facets of the architectural design process, venustas is often troubled by an air of subjectivity. Architecture is a blend of art and science, and yet, the definition, description or discussion on aesthetics is found wanting. This paper attempts an overview of the role of aesthetics in architecture throughout history and highlights how the approach to aesthetics needs to be redefined in contemporary times. While venustas may have been used as a tool for inspiring awe in the onlooker, ‘Everyday architecture’ of the modern world is not about the building, but about its people. Architecture is expected to contribute beyond mere aesthetics-function-structure. Aesthetics is often seen as ‘the’ formula for great architecture amongst students and architects alike. This paper embarks on reasons for such assumptions, highlighting the lacunae in architectural pedagogy methods. It undertakes a study of the curriculum of the major universities in India, offering the undergraduate program in architecture with the objective of understanding how aesthetic sensibilities are appreciated, evaluated, or imparted in architectural pedagogy. The paper attempts to forward an alternate holistic view on aesthetics that incorporates knowledge from interdisciplinary fields and places people and their perception, the semiotics and context as the primary generator of aesthetic experiences instead of the prevalent understanding of aesthetics being intrinsic to surface characteristics and form of the architectural object. The paper also brings to fore, projects that have demonstrated alternate ways of understanding aesthetics.