What is the definition of an Artisan?

do you happen to use a PC that's NOT an IBM?  because if you do, you're using an IBM clone....

I'm typing on a Macbook Pro at this very moment....

ah..the OS that was built on top of another piece of software out there.

I guess you can see where I can continue to go with this, but this is straying entirely too far from the point of the OP.

do you happen to use a PC that's NOT an IBM?  because if you do, you're using an IBM clone....

I'm not sure I have the technical knowledge to be able to properly respond to that analogy, but to use one of my own, the difference I make is between original Gucci bags versus the cheap $5 ripoff Gucci bags that are sold on some side streets in Shanghai. I can understand a design that is somewhat reminiscent of the original Gucci that alters or improves on the design in some significant way (which is how knowledge progresses), but the blatant ripoff is a blatant ripoff.

there's a difference between a $150 bag and a $5 bag: quality. the former will probably far exceed any measurement against it while the latter will just suffice to get you by, so to speak.

Very true. That difference in quality is my functional objection to knockoffs, because the quality is simply not up to par. However, what nervosa1901@ brought up earlier was an interesting point. If (for instance) people were to show off their ripoff Gucci bags or otherwise expose them to the public, they could do real damage to the reputation of Gucci. The same is true with ripoffs of fragrances like Creed. In an admittedly crude engagement with your analogy, it would be like someone manufacturing a crappy, non-working computer/chip that was prominently labeled "Inspired by IBM". It has the real potential of damaging IBM's business.

I'm typing on a Macbook Pro at this very moment....

ah..the OS that was built on top of another piece of software out there.

I guess you can see where I can continue to go with this, but this is straying entirely too far from the point of the OP.

I'm not sure I have the technical knowledge to be able to properly respond to that analogy, but to use one of my own, the difference I make is between original Gucci bags versus the cheap $5 ripoff Gucci bags that are sold on some side streets in Shanghai. I can understand a design that is somewhat reminiscent of the original Gucci that alters or improves on the design in some significant way (which is how knowledge progresses), but the blatant ripoff is a blatant ripoff.

there's a difference between a $150 bag and a $5 bag: quality.   the former will probably far exceed any measurement against it while the latter will just suffice to get you by, so to speak.

Very true. That difference in quality is my functional objection to knockoffs, because the quality is simply not up to par. However, what nervosa1901@ brought up earlier was an interesting point. If (for instance) people were to show off their ripoff Gucci bags or otherwise expose them to the public, they could do real damage to the reputation of Gucci. The same is true with ripoffs of fragrances like Creed. In an admittedly crude engagement with your analogy, it would be like someone manufacturing a crappy, non-working computer/chip that was prominently labeled "Inspired by IBM". It has the real potential of damaging IBM's business.

that's how things evolve though: pushing the envelope, trying to improve upon designs that already exist, offering cheaper alternatives and so on. just think, if someone didn't try to knock off IBM's architecture and reverse engineer parts of it, we might still have a monopoly and incredibly high prices on personal computers.

ah..the OS that was built on top of another piece of software out there.

I guess you can see where I can continue to go with this, but this is straying entirely too far from the point of the OP.



there's a difference between a $150 bag and a $5 bag: quality.   the former will probably far exceed any measurement against it while the latter will just suffice to get you by, so to speak.

Very true. That difference in quality is my functional objection to knockoffs, because the quality is simply not up to par. However, what nervosa1901@ brought up earlier was an interesting point. If (for instance) people were to show off their ripoff Gucci bags or otherwise expose them to the public, they could do real damage to the reputation of Gucci. The same is true with ripoffs of fragrances like Creed. In an admittedly crude engagement with your analogy, it would be like someone manufacturing a crappy, non-working computer/chip that was prominently labeled "Inspired by IBM". It has the real potential of damaging IBM's business.

that's how things evolve though: pushing the envelope, trying to improve upon designs that already exist, offering cheaper alternatives and so on. just think, if someone didn't try to knock off IBM's architecture and reverse engineer parts of it, we might still have a monopoly and incredibly high prices on personal computers.

I completely agree on the IBM analogy. I'm 100% with you on the process by which knowledge improves and designs advance. I just think that process itself is different in substance and intent from the process of reverse engineering a product in order to provide a cheap imitation that references back to the original in order to sell.

In some cases, making a product cheaper is actually a substantive advantage, as the lowered price is in itself an advancement in efficiency. A cheaper laptop brand that serves underprivileged communities/countries might be one example of an improvement that is made by reverse engineering a common design. But that same brand - if it were to market itself as "inspired by Macbook" with plastic made to look like an aluminum unibody chassis - would be an example of a knockoff product.

Very true. That difference in quality is my functional objection to knockoffs, because the quality is simply not up to par. However, what nervosa1901@ brought up earlier was an interesting point. If (for instance) people were to show off their ripoff Gucci bags or otherwise expose them to the public, they could do real damage to the reputation of Gucci. The same is true with ripoffs of fragrances like Creed. In an admittedly crude engagement with your analogy, it would be like someone manufacturing a crappy, non-working computer/chip that was prominently labeled "Inspired by IBM". It has the real potential of damaging IBM's business.

that's how things evolve though: pushing the envelope, trying to improve upon designs that already exist, offering cheaper alternatives and so on.  just think, if someone didn't try to knock off IBM's architecture and reverse engineer parts of it, we might still have a monopoly and incredibly high prices on personal computers.

I completely agree on the IBM analogy. I'm 100% with you on the process by which knowledge improves and designs advance. I just think that process itself is different in substance and intent from the process of reverse engineering a product in order to provide a cheap imitation that references back to the original in order to sell.

In some cases, making a product cheaper is actually a substantive advantage, as the lowered price is in itself an advancement in efficiency. A cheaper laptop brand that serves underprivileged communities/countries might be one example of an improvement that is made by reverse engineering a common design. But that same brand -  if it were to market itself as "inspired by Macbook" with plastic made to look like an aluminum unibody chassis - would be an example of a knockoff product.

we can further the discussion in PMs.

Well then, every single one of Mr. Fine's aftershaves should be boycotted by every user here according to a couple of frag snobs that have posted in this thread lol.  Jesus Christ some of you take yourselves WAY to seriously lmao.

Here is an avatar for you

As Hector so astutely pointed out, while I have not been an active participant here, I am quickly coming to the conclusion that there are a lot of people here who are unwilling to accept an opinion or make a meaningful contribution to a discussion.

I am not a fragrance snob. I am someone who has something of a moral compass and that moral compass precludes me from supporting business owners who steal ideas from other business owners. I, personally, would never purchase a Mr. Fine aftershave for that very reason. Their whole business is based on copying products that are still in production, products, that, relatively speaking, are inexpensive.

As I stated earlier, these soap (and aftershave) makers are no fools. They understand that there are enough EFDans in the world that will hand over their cash for cheaply priced copies of a famous product, and they can make a killing doing it.

Awwww I'm sorry pepe. That stung, oh wait, no I'm not sorry lol. Mods do what you will........

This thread has turned into an embarrassment, it looks like Reddit. Use your internal filter everyone. If you don't have one, step away from the keyboard.

The name calling and insulting doesn't look good for anyone posting, reading or the Mods who are allowing it.

This thread has turned into an embarrassment, it looks like Reddit.  Use your internal filter everyone. If you don't have one, step away from the keyboard.

The name calling and insulting doesn't look good for anyone posting, reading or the Mods who are allowing it.

Bruce, while basically I agree with you, please do not assume that the moderators are doing nothing.  I know that at least one PM has gone out.  Should any more nastiness continue then there will be more actions taken on our part.

Folks, please try to keep the discussion on track.  If you feel you absolutely must get personal, well, that is what PMs are for.  Let's not have to close this worthwhile thread because you (whoever you are) believe you have the right to get on your soapbox to the detriment of everyone else.

Thanks for understanding and, please, let's get this thread back on track.

My apologies......

Please DO NOT get my thread locked because of personal quibbles. Take it outside (so to speak)

I'm trying to understand some definitions here, not quibble over knockoff Chinese products

A couple of points here. It's well known that there are only seven basic stories in literature. I'm not going to go over them, just Google it and you will find them. Example would be "Boy gets Girl, Boy loses Girl, Boy gets Girl and they live happily every after" or "rags to riches" stories like Cinderalla. Every story, every novel, every movies contain some variation of fundamental themes. Knock offs exist. Get over it. Some are incremental improvements, some are junk. There is a difference between counterfeit and knockoff (not identical label).

I'm late to the discussion, but I have mixed feelings about the term "artisan" now that sandwiches at well-known chain restaurants are being called "artisanal"....  Before it became overused and misused, it was a meaningful term with dignity and tradition behind it.  An artisan is skilled at making something by hand; with experience and aptitude the skilled artisan can master a craft and rise to the level of an artist.  But what the artisan makes has a function and a commercial value (whether or not they sell it for a profit).  On the other hand, an artist expresses themselves through a creative medium (be it painting, sculpture, photography, music, whatever), and the products of their creativity are judged on purely aesthetic grounds (although fine art obviously can have a commercial value as well).  It goes without saying that not all artisans are skilled, just as not all artists are talented.

^^^^^ THIS. This is the conclusion I had come to. Yes, an Artisan is skilled in their craft whether it be bread making, pizza making, building furnitures, or making soap. And YES, an artist creates something from nothing. When taking a photograph, I can be an artist, an artist in the creation and an artist in the digital processing. I might not be a "GOOD" artist but an artist none the less. The same is true of soap. And who creates Castle Forbes shaving creams was an artist and whoever makes the actuals creams in a factory can be artisans.

The word "artisan" has NOTHING to do with some individual slaving away in their basement making "small batches" or furniture or in their darkroom moving chemicals from tray to tray or in their single oven baking bread. They CAN be in a watch factory following directions and painstakingly making watches by hand.

Its unfortunately the word has become synonymous with "good" because thats simply not true. There are good and bad artists and artisans. AND, the nouns are NOT mutually exclusive. An artist CAN be an artisan actually producing widgets while an artisan might NOT have the skills or vision to be an artist (but also "could"). It's not either/or.

I'll quibble here - I think you can have good and bad artisans because, for example, there are objective standards as to what makes a good or a bad soap. A badly made soap can have incorrect ingredients or proportions such that the chemical reactions don't occur as they should and the final product isn't really any good, i.e., it should be tossed out not packaged and sold. There are also subjective opinions as to whether one likes or dislikes an objectively good soap. When it comes to artists and art, However, its pretty much all subjective - there isn't any good or bad art but rather art that greater or lesser numbers of people find aesthetically pleasing. You can have an artist with bad fundamentals of their craft such as an inability to mix paints correctly or stretch a canvass properly or a writer who can't spell and doesn't understand sentence structure but apart for that its all subjective. Van Gogh had no commercial success in his lifetime and could have been called a bad artist during his lifetime but history has proven him to be if not a good artist then at least a very successful artist if you judge success by what the market is willing to pay for his art.

Marko