What is the definition of an Artisan?

Grim, I do not have any sort of agenda. I have an opinion that the definition of an artisan involves originality in all facets of creating the product. I noted that scent was where I saw some soap makers falling down.I used Meissner Tremonia as an excellent example of what I found to be a quality artisan, given their propensity to push the envelope on creativity.

Several analogies were made by me and other members merely to illustrate why this was an area of concern, and those analogies led to some digression, but at the end of the day, I feel scent originality is central to what makes a good artisan. If scent was not important, why would people buy more than one soap from the same soap maker? I hope you can understand my points. I merely wanted to spur discussion on one of the elements of the creative process involved in artisan soap making. This is the last you'll hear from me on the subject, unless someone has a disagreement with anything I've said.

I thought the discussion to the originality element was a natural transition and found it to be an interesting conversation. If some find that originality is part of the definition of an artisan, that concept is worth exploring further, in the same way that we discussed elements like profit motive earlier.

What really derails threads are personal attacks. I hope we can avoid those. For instance, BadDad and I might disagree on this issue (at least to some extent), but neither of us are tearing into each other lol. Let's all try to be civil and be respectful towards people that hold opinions that happen to be in the minority.

grim, I know that this discussion might seem a bit out of left field, and I apologize for that, but if some consider originality to be an essential element of what constitutes an "artisan", I think that addressing that particular issue is worthwhile. It allows us to discuss and isolate your wider definition of who should be considered an artisan and what products should be considered artisan. If we all answered the question narrowly and directly, there would be no engagement or discussion since everyone would simply offer their own definition before going our separate ways. The only issue with this particular portion of the discussion is that some have strong feelings on the issue and decided to engage in personal attacks.

I think tangents are essential as long as they relate to the original topic. As long as we can keep the pettiness and insults out of the conversation, discussions are going to run off the rails and back again...We don't have to agree to be respectful...

With that said, I find it interesting how the criteria for determining what each individual would consider an artisan is so different. We all have things we are willing to accept from an "artisan", and we all have things that we consider "deal breakers".

It's pretty easy to assume we all show our preferences with our paychecks when it comes time to make purchases.

As long as we are all free to make those choices for ourselves, I see no reason we shouldn't be able to discuss that reasoning without resorting insults, either direct or implied...

I have an opinion that the definition of an artisan involves originality in all facets of creating the product.

I thought the discussion to the originality element was a natural transition

OK, fair enough. If you believe that an artisan actually creates NEW art, rather than merely being a skilled craftsman, then that is a valid opinion for discussion. Bickering with others here for personal reasons is not.

Now considering this opinion, its in direct contrast with the dictionary definition "a worker who practices a trade or handicraft" Note the key word "worker". This is totally in line with the 100 year old definitions

"Artist is a practiser [sic] of fine arts
Artisan is a practiser of vulgar arts
Mechanic is an Artisan in the mechanic arts

The artist ranks higher than the Artisan. The former requires intellectual refinement in the exercise of art; the later requires nothing but to know the general rules of his art"

The more I look at this the more convinced I am that "artisans" create nothing new. They are exactly what the primary dictionary definition defines them to be "skilled workers". They are not artists, per se and therefore, discussion on fragrances for artisans is moot. If someone throws Lavender Oil into a soap, that does not make them an artist.

-------------

Now, the philosophy of the issue of "cloning" or scents by what I would call an artist - not an artisan. There might be two sides of this, legal and moral.

Legally, if it follows suit with other laws, as long as the seller does not label it the same, knock-offs in the US are not illegal. Counterfeiting for the seller is. http://www.apreponderanceoffashion.com/f...-law-post/ Counterfeiting has trademark and copyright implications as well as fraud on the consumer as the labels are identical indicating you are buying something you are not. Knockoffs, OTH, are done all the time. Watch the Oscars and the same dress is made by someone else at a fraction of the price. http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/24/luxury/r...knockoffs/ Its done all the time.

Morally? Counterfeiting is off the table. Knockoffs or imitations are something else. On one side you can view it as "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery". Or it could be viewed as improving the original. ALL things are continually improved. If they were not improved, then we would still be riding horses. Just go back through technology of ALL history. EVERY technology is continually improved upon an original. Just look at your cars you drive. Back in the 1950s, one "artist", designed fins for cars. Here is the reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_tailfin It was a styling element, clearly an artistic element. Once the first car had fins, they all had to have fins. ... Now fast forward to today. Just look at the cars around you. A decade ago fog lights or Daytime Running Lights (DRLs) were all halogens (more or less). Today, they are all LEDs. So aren't your rear brake lights, a series of LEDs. Somebody copied the original concept. This goes on and on and on as designs are adopted and altered. The earlier PC reference was spot on as well, all clones of the original IBM design. How about those flat screen TVs everyone has now? Do you even see Tube TVs anymore? Nobody sells them. Styling was copied over and over again.

So lets bring this back to soap and scents. I will claim "artists" create something new and "artisans" creates products (i.e., the fine arts vs the vulgar (i.e., common) arts). So speaking of the soap artists - if they do a knockoff of Old Spice, I personally got no issue with that. Now if they copied the exact formula and create the exact scent and labeled it "Old Spice" then that would counterfeiting, but a knockoff is no different than an Oscar dress. So why would they do that? For the exact same reason fashion people create Oscar Knockoffs, and for the exact same reason car makers all use LEDs in their DRLs today, and for the exact same reason they all put fins on their cars in the 1950s - Because consumers want them. And as long as consumers will buy them, so be it. Who doesn't want to get something close to the original cheaply? Do you really want to pay $30,000 for an Oscar dress or $300 locally and to the public they look nearly the same?

So if you want to blame anyone for knockoffs, blame the consumers who buy them. If there was no demand, there would be no knockoffs, but don't blame the "artist" who is merely fulfilling demand.

Phew ... that was tiresome - sorry.

I guess I am one of those consumers, who has purchased a clone/dupe soap (WSP Gaelic Tweed). I do own an original bottle of Creed GIT, but the soap cost, IMO, was/is prohibitively expensive. Especially because I have no experience with the product. (You can test a scent of an EdT and make an informed decision) I imagine an artisan as someone who dedicates his/her career perfecting their chosen product; relying on their own instincts; making changes through trial and error and never being satisfied with anything less than their best effort. I am a singing artist. Michelle is an artisan soap maker. IMHumbleO.

To me, an artisan is someone who makes soap in flip flops while drinking a cold Shiner and watching baseball, which is coincidentally how I plan to spend the evening. Not saying that makes me an artisan - just pointing out the similarity of the situations.

To me, an artisan is someone who makes soap in flip flops while drinking a cold Shiner and watching baseball, which is coincidentally how I plan to spend the evening. Not saying that makes me an artisan -  just pointing out the similarity of the situations.

No need for me to read anything further

To me, an artisan is someone who makes soap in flip flops while drinking a cold Shiner and watching baseball, which is coincidentally how I plan to spend the evening. Not saying that makes me an artisan -  just pointing out the similarity of the situations.

Rod, please let me know if you need a hand- that's my kind of evening right there. Soap would be a bonus!

Michelle is an artisan soap maker. IMHumbleO.  [/i][/b]

I guess this is where we differ.

I would consider Mystic and Stirling and B&M and the others who create their own formulas and their own "new" scent formulations soap "artists", and others who copy a recipe and do nothing original, but are still skilled craftspersons - artisans. And so would be the soap makers in a GFT factory. They are artisans. It has NOTHING to do with somebody working out of their basement like "back in the day". Wiki has good pictures of artisans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artisan ranging from potters to tanners to rope makers to furriers. They can all be artisans - but that does not make them artists.

There may have been a time when words meant something precise.  After all, dictionaries were created with the sole purpose of providing that information. Yet, if ever a time existed when precise definitions were employed, those days are long gone. grim, (and anyone else who seeks precise communication) is going to remain eternally perplexed and disappointed by a language that is used imprecisely and is, therefore, incapable of conveying thoughts with precision or specificity.   When the meaning of a word someone has used is called into question,  the dismissive response is often: "That's just a matter of semantics."  Well, of course it is, since semantics deals with the meaning of words.  Is it any wonder that people hear what someone else is saying, believe they understand what is being said, yet come away with a complete misinterpretation.   Humpty Dumpty put it pretty well,  “When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.”

This thread, while interesting, has done more to illustrate how well and thoroughly, we can misunderstand one another, than it has done to define the single word: "artisan", when  used either as a noun or as an adjective.