The actual work of art is what the product does with and in experience. Dewey says, "the prestige they (a work of art) possess, because of a long history of unquestioned admiration, creates conventions that get in the way of fresh insight." (pg. 156) Dewey is trying to explain that because of the reputation a work of art has gained through time it is difficult to judge the work objectively; we can not judge it in terms of its meaning today, how effective it is in today's time, even we may have trouble understanding what was happening during the time the work was being created and what the artist was thinking. In order to understand a work of art completely, we must understand the conditions in which it was painted (or sculpted, etc.), and we should also examine what it means to the viewer today, i.e. operation in experience.

"In order to understand the meaning of artistic products, we have to forget them for a time, to turn aside from them for a time, to turn aside from them and have recourse to the ordinary forces and conditions of experience that we do not usually regard as esthetic."(pg. 156) By forgetting about a work of art, we allow ourselves to come back and experience the piece without letting any reputations obscure it’s meaning. Free of biased thoughts we should try comparing the experiences that artists of the past felt with the experiences that we feel in the present. "The one who sets out to theorize about the esthetic experience embodied in the Parthenon must realize in thought what the people into whose lives it entered had in common, as creators and as those who were satisfied with it, with people in our own homes and our own streets." Here, the experience is the use that the Roman people had for the Parthenon; while in our present day our experience of the Parthenon is enjoying it’s artistic architectural features.

"In order to understand the esthetic in its ultimate and approved forms, one must begin with it in the raw; in the events and scenes that hold the attentive eye and ear of man, arousing his interest and affording him enjoyment." (pg. 157) Here Dewey is highly emphasizing the idea of the experience to an extreme. He says that in order to understand it completely, we must analyze the work of art from its very beginnings; like what caused it to come into existence, the materials used for it’s creation, the creativity, and so on. Understanding the experience is not necessarily studying the artwork in its final form, but trying to understand and enjoy the journey it took to reach the artwork’s final stage.

"The fault, however, is oftentimes not so much with the worker as with the conditions of the market for which his product is designed."

"For when what he knows as art is relegated to the museum and gallery, the able in themselves finds such outlet as daily environment provides... So extensive and subtly pervasive are the idea that set Art upon a remote pedestal, that many a person would be repelled rather than pleased if told that he enjoyed his casual recreations, in part at least, because of their esthetic quality." (pg. 157) Dewey rejects the museum concept of art because museums make the artwork appear as though it were larger than life. By doing so it makes it difficult for an individual to "experience" the art. The artist and artwork is not to blame for people not being able to truly share an "experience", but the museum itself is for the manner in which they present it. Instead of allowing us to experience a world of imagination, we must settle for what could be considered a mere slide show.

"Domestic utensils, furnishings of tent and house, rugs, mats, jars, pots, bows, spears, were wrought with such delighted care that today we hunt them out and give them places of honor in our art museums. Yet in their own time and place, such things were enhancements of the processes of everyday life." (pg. 158) Dewey expresses that since museums put art on a pedestal, objects used today could have artistic value, but we don't realize it. Museums are glorifying pottery of the past along with other objects that weren’t initially created as works of art, but because they are ancient we give them a higher significance than they may deserve.

"Many a person who protests against the museum conception of art, still shares the fallacy from which that conception springs. For the popular notion comes from a separation of art from the objects and scenes of ordinary experience that many theorists and critics pride themselves upon holding and even elaboration." (pg. 157) He says that those who reject the museum conception of art reject it because the art is separated from the scenes of ordinary experience and now more difficult for others to fully comprehend.

"Structures that housed their gods and the instrumentalities that facilitated commerce with the higher powers were wrought with especial fineness. But the arts of the drama, music, painting, and architecture thus exemplified had no peculiar connection with theatres, galleries, museums. They were part of the significant life of an organized community." (pg 158) Dewey states that all those forms of art had no connection with museum galleries, likewise today, he says that comic strips, newspapers, etc..., could be art, but have no connection with museum galleries because of the museum conception of art. Which makes one wonder, who is to say what art is worthy of being considered "museum quality"?

Dewey is trying to express that there is more to the artwork than just a final product; there’s a connection between what is used to make the product and the meaning that goes with it. Dewey goes on to say, "Meaning does not belong to the word and signboard of its own intrinsic right. They have meaning in the sense in which an algebraic formula or a cipher code has it." (pg. 165) A sign by itself is not expressive, instead everything that makes up the sign, plus it’s interpretation makes it expressive. He uses the example of a road sign; it has letters written on it, and numbers, and arrows; from that we think (unconsciously) about what all this means and interpret which way to go. This is expression, and this is what he means that a medium (the sign, and everything associated with it) and the act of expression is intrinsic. Meaning the medium and the expression go hand in hand.

"Not even a useful object is produced except by the intervention of imagination. Some existent material was perceived in the light of relations and possibilities not the hitherto realized when the steam engine was invented." (pg. 167) Here he gives justification to what he has said. Stating that the reason for this is because the work of art works with our imagination is using the same interpretation as a road sign works with our interpretation. In art, he says the artist works under the same principle when he paints objects, they relate to some object in the real world, or are an object of symbolism that we subconsciously relate to something in our own lives and of our own experiences.

He concludes with this: "The work of art is thus a challenge to the performance of a like act of evocation and organization, through imagination, on the part of the one who experience it. it is not just a stimulus to and means of an overt course of action." (pg. 167) So the work of art is not just a work of art, but a process that involves both the work and the viewer; and its meaning can not be separated from the art itself (like the sign).

In this following passage Dewey answers his own question as "clearly" as a philosopher can (sarcasm):"In every work of art, however, these meanings are actually embodied in a material which thereby becomes the medium for their expression." (pg. 167) Which I agree with. As an artist I choose certain mediums to portray a certain feeling I want the artwork to express, but in actuality, it’s the expression using the medium I have chosen to tell it’s tale. For example if I was aiming for a look of sorrow, I would possibly use charcoals for my medium. The feel of sorrow would use the dark aspects of charcoal to set the tone of depression, but only combined with the viewer’s relation to their own sorrowful experiences/interpretations can the artwork achieve it’s true purpose. The purpose of relating to the viewer beyond a mere physical realm where you can touch the artwork itself, but instead, the viewer is touched on an intangible, emotional plane. Ultimately as to whether he is right or not, I believe its strictly a matter of opinion.