Re: Photography Is Not Art, Chapter XXXVII
fabio
Art relates to Artefact (something created-produced by the human being).
We could say that the camera is the artefact and the picture is a consequence of the use of the artefact. A picture of a landscape is the reproduction of a fragment of something that exists and has not been created by the human being.
That reality exists even when we leave that space. Our action, apart form the development of the film is a "click".
If I tell some friends to cover themselves with spreadable chocolate and then I take a picture of them, then my intervention is in the creation of the image, I do not use the canvas and the colours but the camera to create the image, therefore I could be called an artist. It is impossible to generalize, cases have to be discussed one by one
but it can be said that photography is the reproduction of an image that already exists and that can be a human creation or an image of nature. If I touch the negative and
modify its surface to convey a particular effect then the artefact is the negative and
the print is its reproduction. The artist in this case is like a print maker (litographies, engreavings.....); he does act on the negative as an etcher does on a metal plate.
Those are the artefacts, we could say, while the print is always a reproduction.
Ciao,
Fabio
--
fabio
------------------------------------------------------------------------
View this thread: http://www.photographytalk.net/viewtopic-82228.html
Send from http://www.photographytalk.net
Nicholas O. Lindan
> Art relates to Artefact (something created-produced by the human being).
> We could say that the camera is the artefact and the picture is a consequence
I get it. The camera is art but the photograph isn't.
Art is what art is, what the art is made from and how it is made
are not relevant - not in the slightest manner.
If a urinal can be generally accepted as art then I don't see what
the objection can be to a photograph. (1)
Why the hysteria?
That a particular object is or is not art is up to each individual observer
to judge for themselves. To declare a category of objects to be 'not art'
has only inflammatory meaning.
Heck with talking on the cell phone drunk, I need something to keep me
off the 'net before morning coffee.
Sorry Fabio, no offense meant.
(1) http://www.beatmuseum.org/duchamp/fountain.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11007115/
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm
Two
> If a urinal can be generally accepted as art then I don't see what
> the objection can be to a photograph. (1)
If you are referring to Marcel. Duchamp's urinal, then let us get it right -
he was NOT claiming it was a work of art. In fact he meant it as quite the
opposite: he submitted the piece as a protest of the nonjurried show, in
essence saying "If you are not going to judge or jury the work, then you are
saying anything can be art, but anything cannot be art. Take this urinal. If
anything can be art then nothing can be art."
Gordon Moat
. . . . and in so doing, later art historians recognized that work be
Duchamp as art.
I think artists and art historians are the valid and proper individuals
to decide what is, or is not, a work of art. Seems that too many
non-artists want to place their own ideas, perceptions, or restrictions
upon this. Artists largely accept the viewpoints put forward by other
artists or art historians, yet largely reject statements by any
non-artists. As an artist how has displayed works in many mediums, not
just photography, I flatly reject, and often ignore, comments made
against works of art, when such comments do not originate from artists
or art historians.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
Gordon Moat wrote:
>
> I think artists and art historians are the valid and proper individuals
> to decide what is, or is not, a work of art.
Artists? No. Art historians, sometimes.
> Seems that too many
> non-artists want to place their own ideas, perceptions, or restrictions
> upon this.
No, aestheticians and critics are trained to do this. Artists are not.
Car mechanics are not by training race-car drivers.
> Artists largely accept the viewpoints put forward by other
> artists or art historians, yet largely reject statements by any
> non-artists.
Statements about what?
> As an artist how has displayed works in many mediums, not
> just photography, I flatly reject, and often ignore, comments made
> against works of art, when such comments do not originate from artists
> or art historians.
Huh?
Mike Young
news:fabio....@no-mx.photographytalk.net...
>
> Our action, apart form the development of the film is a "click".
That, too, is art. My latest landscape series may look very much like dimly
lit plaid flannel, but I assure you they are scenic landscapes. I developed
a technique whereby I leave the digicam in my shirt pocket, reach inside
with one finger, and "Click!" I have another unique if unrecognizable as
such landscape. Ansel Adams watch out.
David Nebenzahl
Hey, you think *that's* art? Check this out:
http://www.oberlin.edu/stupub/ocreview/2006/02/24/arts/article1.html
Gives a whole new meaning to "body of photography".
--
To the arrogant putzes at NBC:
Do we call the country Italia? Is its capital Roma?
Were previous Olympics held in Moskva, Muenchen or Athine?
Do we call it the "Shroud of Torino"?
No!
So learn to speak English already and call it Turin.
- from someone's blog
Bogdan Karasek
Just my two loonies worth (I'm Canadian)
I would venture that there is a flaw in the premise of the argument,
namely that "photography is the reproduction of an image that already
exists......"
Since when does a photography have to be a reproduction. If you are
talking about a police mug shot, then yes, it's not exactly art but to
generalize and claim that photography is a reproduction and thus not art
is a claim that does not stand up to the scrutiny of logic. The premise
is not valid. Check some photos, many have absolutely no relationship to
the actual existing thing. In my case, they are merely a play of light
and dark. Also, Logic 101 states that you cannot generalize a
universal truth from a particular case.
It's so hard sometimes to stop being a logic teacher.
Regards,
Bogdan
fabio wrote:
We could say that the camera is the artefact and the picture is a
consequence of the use of the artefact. A picture of a landscape is the
reproduction of a fragment of something that exists and has not been
created by the human being.
it can be said that photography is the reproduction of an image that
already exists and that can be a human creation or an image of nature.
If I touch the negative and
> modify its surface to convey a particular effect then the artefact is the negative and
> the print is its reproduction. The artist in this case is like a print maker (litographies, engreavings.....); he does act on the negative as an etcher does on a metal plate.
> Those are the artefacts, we could say, while the print is always a reproduction.
>
> Ciao,
>
> Fabio
>
>
--
__________________________________________________________________
Bogdan Karasek
Montrï¼¢l, Quï¼£ec e-mail: bkar...@videotron.ca
Canada
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, dar｜er muss man schweigen"
"What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence"
Ludwig Wittgenstein
________________________________________________________________
David Nebenzahl
> The premise is not valid. Check some photos, many have absolutely no
> relationship to the actual existing thing.
Examples, pleeze?
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
> Bogdan Karasek spake thus:
> [photographs are literal representations]
> > The premise is not valid. Check some photos, many have absolutely no
> > relationship to the actual existing thing.
>
> Examples, pleeze?
I went to Yosemite and I was shocked - there's all this
brown and green stuff everywhere! The clouds were white,
okay, but the sky was BLUE! That tricky old Ansel Adams
lied to me!
Bogdan Karasek
To the Yosemite example, :) I can add the work of many other
photographers, photographers who manipulate the negative either
directly, I draw on some of my 8x10's, or scrap off emulsion, or
indirectly throught the use of chemicals, playing with contrast, in the
printing stage, the different materials that can be used, warm or cold
paper, the chemicals, toning, bleaching, cropping, burning, dodging,
print the positive copy of the negative, print the neg upsidedown,......
in the end, you have created a new image that bears little resemblance
to the original scene. That's not reproduction, that's art.
Of course, there will always be those who merely reproduce, putting
their tripod in the exact location that Ansel put it, same time of day,
dame Half Dome, but if that's their thing, who am I to argue.
Art is creation and some, but not all, photography is creation and thus
art. Some people copy Matisse, or Picasso but that's not art. Doesn't
take away from the enjoyment it gives some people. Things are not,
excuse the expression, black or white, one extreme or the other. And, of
course, not all art is of the same quality, but then greatness is not
usually used as a criterion for art, again there are levels.
I still like the Yosemite example :) You mean colour exists? :)
Regards,
Bogdan
b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
--
__________________________________________________________________
Bogdan Karasek
Montréal, Québec e-mail: bkar...@videotron.ca
Canada
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen"
Gordon Moat
uraniumc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Gordon Moat wrote:
>
>
>>I think artists and art historians are the valid and proper individuals
>>to decide what is, or is not, a work of art.
>
>
> Artists? No. Art historians, sometimes.
>
>
Unusual opinion, though as an outsider you are entitled to an opinion.
Formally trained artists do learn art history, and can go onwards to
higher degrees in art history. Art historians do learn foundations of
art, and can go onwards to become artists.
>>Seems that too many
>>non-artists want to place their own ideas, perceptions, or restrictions
>>upon this.
>
>
> No, aestheticians and critics are trained to do this. Artists are not.
Critics? About as useful as a sports writer that never played sports.
> Car mechanics are not by training race-car drivers.
>
In the history of auto racing, there have been some who were. Today that
is quite rare. As with many things, becoming a specialist can be more
lucrative.
>
>>Artists largely accept the viewpoints put forward by other
>>artists or art historians, yet largely reject statements by any
>>non-artists.
>
>
> Statements about what?
>
What is, or is not, art. (refer to my first sentence above)
>
>>As an artist how has displayed works in many mediums, not
>>just photography, I flatly reject, and often ignore, comments made
>>against works of art, when such comments do not originate from artists
>>or art historians.
>
>
> Huh?
>
If an individual does not produce, nor exhibit, works of art, then they
are an outsider in the world of art. Art historians learn art
foundations, so their opinions are more highly regarded than those of
outsiders, or non-artists. That does not mean, nor imply, that artists
or art historians agree on much of anything . . . on the contrary, there
is probably more disagreement between people and opinions in the art world.
A more recent development is that some major galleries and the large
auction houses are now dictating trends and movements in the art world.
Part of that is driven by some collectors of art. It remains to be seen
what influence this has on future trends, and how recent developments
will be recorded in art history texts.
David Nebenzahl
> A more recent development is that some major galleries and the large
> auction houses are now dictating trends and movements in the art world.
> Part of that is driven by some collectors of art. It remains to be seen
> what influence this has on future trends, and how recent developments
> will be recorded in art history texts.
"Recent development"? Hardly. You need to read an essential work on the
subject, Tom Wolfe's _The Painted Word_. Maybe the only thing you need
to read on the subject.
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
Gordon Moat wrote:
> uraniumc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Gordon Moat wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I think artists and art historians are the valid and proper individuals
> >>to decide what is, or is not, a work of art.
> >
> >
> > Artists? No. Art historians, sometimes.
> >
> >
>
> Unusual opinion, though as an outsider you are entitled to an opinion.
Everyone has the right to put forth arguments, artists or not. Everyone
who is qualified, that is, by understanding what aesthetics is and th
eprinciples upon which it rests. This is from the field of philosophy,
not art. Artists are not philosophers, generally.
> Formally trained artists do learn art history, and can go onwards to
> higher degrees in art history.
Some do, but it is unncessary, as art history is unconnected with art
production.
> Art historians do learn foundations of
> art, and can go onwards to become artists.
>
>
> >>Seems that too many
> >>non-artists want to place their own ideas, perceptions, or restrictions
> >>upon this.
> >
> >
> > No, aestheticians and critics are trained to do this. Artists are not.
>
> Critics? About as useful as a sports writer that never played sports.
You don't understand what I mean by 'critic'.
> > Car mechanics are not by training race-car drivers.
> >
>
> In the history of auto racing, there have been some who were. Today that
> is quite rare. As with many things, becoming a specialist can be more
> lucrative.
Artists are not philosophers, either.
>>Artists largely accept the viewpoints put forward by other
> >>artists or art historians, yet largely reject statements by any
> >>non-artists.
> >
> >
> > Statements about what?
> >
>
> What is, or is not, art. (refer to my first sentence above)
Artists are not phiosophers. Why should anyone pay any attention to
them?
reboot
"David Nebenzahl" <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote in message
news:440b7b71$0$25078$8226...@news.adtechcomputers.com...
> http://www.oberlin.edu/stupub/ocreview/2006/02/24/arts/article1.html
Been done. A 14 year-old's idea for the Asshole Pinhole Camera was published
in the Pinhole Journal years ago. Before that, there was the Mouth Pinhole
Camera. I rather look forward to The New Hole In The Head Pinhole Camera,
specifically the Republican version.
rafe b
"reboot" <reb...@ram.xxx> wrote in message
news:120pa0v...@news.supernews.com...
> Been done. A 14 year-old's idea for the Asshole Pinhole Camera was
> published in the Pinhole Journal years ago. Before that, there was the
> Mouth Pinhole Camera. I rather look forward to The New Hole In The Head
> Pinhole Camera, specifically the Republican version.
If it can do anything to illuminate or enlighten the
Republican brain, I'm all for it.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
Gordon Moat
uraniumc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> . . . . . . .
>
> Artists are not phiosophers. Why should anyone pay any attention to
> them?
>
>
Exactly true for most artists and most philosophers. Those who are not
philosophers are outsiders to philosophers. I would imagine there is
very little respect in either direction.
Gordon Moat
David Nebenzahl wrote:
> Gordon Moat spake thus:
>
>> A more recent development is that some major galleries and the large
>> auction houses are now dictating trends and movements in the art
>> world. Part of that is driven by some collectors of art. It remains to
>> be seen what influence this has on future trends, and how recent
>> developments will be recorded in art history texts.
>
>
> "Recent development"? Hardly. You need to read an essential work on the
> subject, Tom Wolfe's _The Painted Word_. Maybe the only thing you need
> to read on the subject.
>
>
Thanks for the book recommendation. Time is a very relative aspect in
art. We could go back to cave painting as the first artworks, though
most people go to a later period in time. Of course wealthy patrons have
dictated major works for centuries, while the major auction houses have
been gaining in influence only in the last century . . . on a relative
scale of artwork through the ages, it is "recent", though perhaps I
could have used more descriptive wording.
rafe b
"Gordon Moat" <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:440CB499...@attglobal.net...
>
> uraniumc...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> . . . . . . .
>> Artists are not phiosophers. Why should anyone pay any attention to
>> them?
>>
> Exactly true for most artists and most philosophers. Those who are not
> philosophers are outsiders to philosophers. I would imagine there is very
> little respect in either direction.
UC gets his art at the Kincaide gallery, which
is convenient, being right next to the food court.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
David Nebenzahl
OK, I accept that; in the same way that Mozart sounds "modern" to my
ears (as compared, say, to Palestrina).
David Nebenzahl
As they say, the instrument has yet to be invented ...
rafe b
"David Nebenzahl" <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote in message
> rafe b spake thus:
>
>> "reboot" <reb...@ram.xxx> wrote in message
>> news:120pa0v...@news.supernews.com...
>>
>>> Been done. A 14 year-old's idea for the Asshole Pinhole Camera was
>>> published in the Pinhole Journal years ago. Before that, there was
>>> the Mouth Pinhole Camera. I rather look forward to The New Hole In
>>> The Head Pinhole Camera, specifically the Republican version.
>>
>> If it can do anything to illuminate or enlighten the
>> Republican brain, I'm all for it.
>
> As they say, the instrument has yet to be invented ...
And lord knows, we've seen enough of Republican assholes.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
David Nebenzahl
Ooooooh, now *that's* hitting below the belt: like accusing a musician
of loving Kenny G.
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
> rafe b spake thus:
> > UC gets his art at the Kincaide gallery, which
> > is convenient, being right next to the food court.
>
> Ooooooh, now *that's* hitting below the belt: like accusing a musician
> of loving Kenny G.
Sunday's LA Times had a lengthy, three falls and a body-slam
takedown of "art" mogul Thomas Kinkade. Read it at:
<http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-fi-kinkade5mar05,0,1266147.story>
(registration probably required, visit bugmenot.com if this causes
you distress)
If Schadenfreude is your favorite dish, it's a banquet.
Ben
Two
news:ytadnfcCfKR...@speakeasy.net...
> And lord knows, we've seen enough of Republican assholes.
Last year I did some surgical illustrations. The easiest were for the
reconstruction of Republicans. They are hollow and have only two parts:
mouth and asshole - and they are interchangeable.
David Nebenzahl
> David Nebenzahl wrote:
>
>> rafe b spake thus:
>
>>> UC gets his art at the Kincaide gallery, which is convenient,
>>> being right next to the food court.
>>
>> Ooooooh, now *that's* hitting below the belt: like accusing a
>> musician of loving Kenny G.
>
> Sunday's LA Times had a lengthy, three falls and a body-slam
> takedown of "art" mogul Thomas Kinkade. Read it at:
>
> <http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-fi-kinkade5mar05,0,1266147.story>
>
> (registration probably required, visit bugmenot.com if this causes
> you distress)
Turns out that's not needed.
> If Schadenfreude is your favorite dish, it's a banquet.
A feast, indeed.
It almost makes me *like* the guy a little; after all, anyone who has
the nerve to piss on Winnie the Pooh at the Disneyland Hotel can't be
all bad.
Gordon Moat
Classic! Thanks for the laugh . . . I needed that after a very long day.
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
Gordon Moat wrote:
> uraniumc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > . . . . . . .
> >
> > Artists are not phiosophers. Why should anyone pay any attention to
> > them?
> >
> >
>
> Exactly true for most artists and most philosophers. Those who are not
> philosophers are outsiders to philosophers. I would imagine there is
> very little respect in either direction.
Philosophers (I generously count myself among them, as my degree is in
philosophy) have a great deal of respect for artists qua artists. We
have no respect for anyone who tries to 'do' philosophy without the
slightest notion of how to 'do' it, or who rejects the methods of
philosophy altogether.
Two
> Philosophers (I generously count myself among them, as my degree is in
> philosophy)
From where and when?
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
Ohio State University, 1976
Two
news:1141827215.7...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>> From where and when?
>
> Ohio State University, 1976
Thanks for that. I can look it up. If it's a terminal degree then we can
talk, otherwise ... well you know academe.
--
job - PhD, Philosophy, Oxford, 1968
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
Two wrote:
> <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1141827215.7...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> From where and when?
> >
> > Ohio State University, 1976
>
> Thanks for that. I can look it up. If it's a terminal degree then we can
> talk, otherwise ... well you know academe.
You mean that a PhD considers people with BA's unworthy?
Gordon Moat
uraniumc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Two wrote:
>
>><uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:1141827215.7...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>>>From where and when?
>>>
>>>Ohio State University, 1976
>>
>>Thanks for that. I can look it up. If it's a terminal degree then we can
>>talk, otherwise ... well you know academe.
>
>
> You mean that a PhD considers people with BA's unworthy?
>
A friend of mine who recently got his PhD told me that those letters
stood for "Piled Higher & Deeper".
David Nebenzahl
> Two wrote:
>
>><uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:1141827215.7...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>>From where and when?
>>>
>>>Ohio State University, 1976
>>
>>Thanks for that. I can look it up. If it's a terminal degree then we can
>>talk, otherwise ... well you know academe.
>
> You mean that a PhD considers people with BA's unworthy?
What it *really* means is that as a Ph.D, he had a bigger hole carved in
his skull by the academy (you know, the one they use to stuff your head
full of their programming). You merely had a smaller hole in your head.
el...@no.spam
Gordon Moat <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>A friend of mine who recently got his PhD told me that those letters
>stood for "Piled Higher & Deeper".
The entire joke:
BS=<you know what>
MS=More of the Same
PhD=Piled Higher and Deeper
Greg "Blank" - Lizard King.
> A friend of mine who recently got his PhD told me that those letters
> stood for "Piled Higher & Deeper".
>
> Ciao!
>
> Gordon Moat
> A G Studio
> <http://www.allgstudio.com>
I would say it depends on the school and the profession.
There are three PhD's in my family (Not me).
One English & technical writing specific to Forestry (Also a 2006
Fullbright Scholarship recipient)
One in Philosophy- writes technical documentation for a
Corporate software provider.
Three credentials recently acquired in Marine Biology
Full scholarship from undergrad level to professor status at Stanford.
--
The things we hate most in life often turn out to be a mirror image
of ourselves. Better not to hate.
Findmedirectly - "infoatgregblankphoto.com"
Gordon Moat
Greg \"Blank\" - Lizard King. wrote:
> In article <4410AABF...@attglobal.net>,
> Gordon Moat <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>A friend of mine who recently got his PhD told me that those letters
>>stood for "Piled Higher & Deeper".
>
> I would say it depends on the school and the profession.
>
No disrespect intended; the above was merely for humour . . . I thought
it was funny to hear that from someone who just got a PhD.
Unfortunately (fortunately?) I only have a BFA, with the highest
possible path being an MFA. I am considering going that route currently,
though I am not yet completely convinced of the value in going that
direction.
Greg "Blank" - Lizard King.
Gordon Moat <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote:
No disrespect taken, I understood the humor :)
Nicholas O. Lindan
> Logic 101 states that you cannot generalize a
> universal truth from a particular case.
Enforcement would remove 99% of all Usenet posts.
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm
Nicholas O. Lindan
> If an individual does not produce, nor exhibit,
> works of art, then they are an outsider in the world of art.
http://www.outsiderart.info/what_is_outsider_art.htm
http://www.outsiderart.info/
http://outsider.art.org/ Visit the Permanent Collection
Being outside the world of art is hotter than being
inside...
http://swapatorium.blogspot.com/2006/01/contest-bad-thrift-store-painting.html
http://www.thriftstoreart.com/#GALLERY
http://www.museumofbadart.org/
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
> "Bogdan Karasek" <bkar...@videotron.ca> wrote
>
> > Logic 101 states that you cannot generalize a
> > universal truth from a particular case.
Of course you can, but the probability that it holds in all cases are
shaky.
Gordon Moat
Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
> Gordon Moat wrote:
>
>
>>If an individual does not produce, nor exhibit,
>>works of art, then they are an outsider in the world of art.
>
>
> http://www.outsiderart.info/what_is_outsider_art.htm
> http://www.outsiderart.info/
>
> http://outsider.art.org/ Visit the Permanent Collection
>
> Being outside the world of art is hotter than being
> inside...
>
> http://swapatorium.blogspot.com/2006/01/contest-bad-thrift-store-painting.html
> http://www.thriftstoreart.com/#GALLERY
> http://www.museumofbadart.org/
>
Lots of old news. The term "Outsider" is different than what I meant.
Maybe I need a different word. I am very well aware of so-called
Outsider Art, and I actually like some of this. There are few absolutes
in the world of art.
Getting back to my original point, I would be much more likely to listen
to and regard comments from these individuals than from some
philosopher. That does not mean I would agree with their ideas, but
there is seldom agreement in the world of art.
Outsider Art is also sort of a rebellion of the formal art world, much
like Dada, and a few movements prior to that time period. I would never
want to suggest formal training is needed, but it often shows when an
individual was formally trained in art. Just by creating and exhibiting
art, these individuals you point out are in my opinion no longer
non-artists . . . maybe that is my better term: "non-artist".
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
Gordon Moat wrote:
>
>
> Getting back to my original point, I would be much more likely to listen
> to and regard comments from these individuals than from some
> philosopher.
Why? Don't you understand what philosophers do? The realm of aesthetics
belongs to philosophy. It has since Plato. Remember 'Natural
Philosophy' is what we today call 'science'. Newton was a philosopher.
Bacon was a philosopher. Artists today typically have no training in
philosophy.