john dewey. dewey, or dewnot?

ALright, so this week in class we discussed john dewey's view on art, and i am not afraid to admit to everyone that i really did not understand it very well. But there are some things that i do agree with,which i understand. I agree that we as humans have this aesthetic hunger and the need to satisfy it, so they make things which are beautiful. And it opened my eyes when I differentiated museums from the standard idea of what art should be. That broadened my horizon and scope of my understanding of art. Because, before considering the museum idea, i thought that all things in museums were considered great works of art. But there is indeed much else that is considered art that cannot be found in a museum because it exists in nature, or even in the person's intent to pursue the perfection of whatever it is that they are doing, then that can be considered a type of art i believe. But then it kind of turns art into something that is not special or exclusive, becuase it is sooooo radically inclusive. Dewey believed everything could be considered art. And that bothers me.... just a tiny bit. Its kind of like saying that everything is special, therefore nothing is. I do agree that art is soemthing that can be attainable though, i just dont believe that Dewey found a perfect balance between them. Was Dewey just this impossible optimist who just appreciated everything? we all know someone like that. I like to consider myself to be passionate about many things, but being that appreciative of everything as art might be exhausting at times. Well i guess it works as long as the art is prefigured.

So my question for now is, are there other aspects of aesthetic life, or ordinary life, that are prefigured?