Should philosophy have something to say to non-philosophers? Should philosophy be pursued only by those trained in philosophy? Should academic teachers of philosophy consider themselves philosophers in virtue of the fact that they teach philosophy? And should analytic philosophers deny that continental philosophers are philosophers at all, or acknowledge that they represent different modes of philosophizing? Cogito poses some big questions to four prominent British and US philosophers.
(via 
wood s lot)
Which got me to wondering...
Should 
art have something to say to non-
artists? Should 
art be pursued only by those trained in 
art? Should academic teachers of 
art consider themselves 
artists in virtue of the fact that they teach 
art? And should 
formalist artists deny that 
conceptual artists are 
artists at all, or acknowledge that they represent different modes of 
art-making?
Or, since some painters resist the label "artist":
Should 
painting have something to say to non-
painters? Should 
painting be pursued only by those trained in 
painting?
Or, in a literary vein:
Should 
poetry have something to say to non-
poets? Should 
poetry be pursued only by those trained in 
poetry?