What is the definition of an Artisan?

It is a good thing I don't have to contemplate such complex questions. I'll just keep using my soap and enjoy it.  

I do like the new term, Shartisan.

Just to play devil's advocate, as an example of how these definitions can be a bit loose, here are some complications to each individual point:

1. What does it mean for the product to be made by hand? What if a production machine is designed, programmed, and automated by an artisan?
2. What if the type of soap, cream, or razor requires large batch purchases? I'd imagine that large batch production is different than small batch, individual made-to-order, and mass production methods.
3. What if some ingredients are exceptionally high quality and others are cheap? For example, some soaps that I've tried use a great base but use cheap and low quality fragrance oils.
4. What if some parts of the product are made in house but others are ordered? For example, an "artisan" might outsource a label, the packaging, or even the design/mixing of a fragrance.
5. Again, what if some parts of the finished product are original designs, but others are not?
6. Non-utilitarian assumptions require that the artisan have a particular motivation. How can we know or verify this in order to apply the label appropriately? Should we believe claims that are made in marketing materials?

To be clear mate, I'm not trying to refute or pick on your points in particular, but since you articulated some specific ones (and very well, I might add), it is helpful for me to use them as a device to contrast with my own point on the problems with using the "artisan" vs. "non-artisan" label.

1: If there's no chance for (slight) variation caused by human interaction in the creation of the product, it's not artisan.
2. Small batch would max out at the largest amount of product a single artisan can make without automating the process. I'd assume it'd vary per artisan. So let's say an artisan could make 50 soaps to a batch and Maggard's ordered 300. They'd have to make 6 batches to fulfill the order.
3. I'd call that a shartisan.
4. Do you consider the packaging, labels, etc. part of the product? I do in some ways, but I'm more interested in the product itself, not the package it comes in. I'd consider it a bonus if someone was hand making their jars, but I don't think it's a necessity to be an artisan.
5. Like? If you hand carved brush handles and glued in a Plisson knot, the handle would be artisan. The knot would not.
6. I'd say it's pretty easy to discern. Though I won't delve further into it given my position as a soap maker.

Since you brought it up, motivations play a very important part. I'd maintain that as soon as the artisan becomes more focused on money than the "art" they're creating, they are no longer an artisan.

Your responses are very well-considered. On your fourth point, I'm not sure that it's that easy to distinguish between the product and ancillary concerns like packaging. When it comes to some soaps, the scent and soap base are manufactured/designed by different people. One of my favorite soaps of all time was designed and created by an artisan, but the scent was commissioned by the artisan and crafted by a perfumer in Grasse. I'm not sure that would automatically disqualify this soap as being an artisan soap since it would probably fulfill all other conditions. I imagine this would account for your reply in point 5 also. While we might be able to distinguish between parts of a brush as being artisan or non-artisan, what do we call the brush as a whole? Is it an artisan brush or not? Is it only an artisan brush if 100% of the brush is artisan? If not, what percentage qualifies as "artisan"? Again, I'm not trying to pick on your excellent points, but am simply trying to demonstrate the difficulty with isolating a generalizable definition.

By the way, on point six, I'd love to hear your reasoning if you'd like to discuss it. As for my own personal take on the issue, I'm not sure that it is easy or even possible to discern with reliable accuracy a person's internal motivations, nor am I certain that profit and alternative motivations are mutually exclusive.

Just to play devil's advocate, as an example of how these definitions can be a bit loose, here are some complications to each individual point:

1. What does it mean for the product to be made by hand? What if a production machine is designed, programmed, and automated by an artisan?
2. What if the type of soap, cream, or razor requires large batch purchases? I'd imagine that large batch production is different than small batch, individual made-to-order, and mass production methods.
3. What if some ingredients are exceptionally high quality and others are cheap? For example, some soaps that I've tried use a great base but use cheap and low quality fragrance oils.
4. What if some parts of the product are made in house but others are ordered? For example, an "artisan" might outsource a label, the packaging, or even the design/mixing of a fragrance.
5. Again, what if some parts of the finished product are original designs, but others are not?
6. Non-utilitarian assumptions require that the artisan have a particular motivation. How can we know or verify this in order to apply the label appropriately? Should we believe claims that are made in marketing materials?

To be clear mate, I'm not trying to refute or pick on your points in particular, but since you articulated some specific ones (and very well, I might add), it is helpful for me to use them as a device to contrast with my own point on the problems with using the "artisan" vs. "non-artisan" label.

1: If there's no chance for (slight) variation caused by human interaction in the creation of the product, it's not artisan.
2. Small batch would max out at the largest amount of product a single artisan can make without automating the process. I'd assume it'd vary per artisan. So let's say an artisan could make 50 soaps to a batch and Maggard's ordered 300. They'd have to make 6 batches to fulfill the order.
3. I'd call that a shartisan.
4. Do you consider the packaging, labels, etc. part of the product? I do in some ways, but I'm more interested in the product itself, not the package it comes in. I'd consider it a bonus if someone was hand making their jars, but I don't think it's a necessity to be an artisan.
5. Like? If you hand carved brush handles and glued in a Plisson knot, the handle would be artisan. The knot would not.
6. I'd say it's pretty easy to discern. Though I won't delve further into it given my position as a soap maker.

Since you brought it up, motivations play a very important part. I'd maintain that as soon as the artisan becomes more focused on money than the "art" they're creating, they are no longer an artisan.

Your responses are very well-considered. On your fourth point, I'm not sure that it's that easy to distinguish between the product and ancillary concerns like packaging. When it comes to some soaps, the scent and soap base are manufactured/designed by different people. One of my favorite soaps of all time was designed and created by an artisan, but the scent was commissioned by the artisan and crafted by a perfumer in Grasse. I'm not sure that would automatically disqualify this soap as being an artisan soap since it would probably fulfill all other conditions. I imagine this would account for your reply in point 5 also. While we might be able to distinguish between parts of a brush as being artisan or non-artisan, what do we call the brush as a whole? Is it an artisan brush or not? Is it only an artisan brush if 100% of the brush is artisan? If not, what percentage qualifies as "artisan"? Again, I'm not trying to pick on your excellent points, but am simply trying to demonstrate the difficulty with isolating a generalizable definition.

By the way, on point six, I'd love to hear your reasoning if you'd like to discuss it. As for my own personal take on the issue, I'm not sure that it is easy or even possible to discern with reliable accuracy a person's internal motivations, nor am I certain that profit and alternative motivations are mutually exclusive.

The soap you are speaking of as being scented by another company I assume is Nuavia. That should be considered an artisan soap imo because the product is the soap.

If I get a handwritten letter and sample with my soap, it's Artisan.

If I get nothing, it's Shartisan.

Too soon?

GRAVY! GRAVY!

1: If there's no chance for (slight) variation caused by human interaction in the creation of the product, it's not artisan.
2. Small batch would max out at the largest amount of product a single artisan can make without automating the process. I'd assume it'd vary per artisan. So let's say an artisan could make 50 soaps to a batch and Maggard's ordered 300. They'd have to make 6 batches to fulfill the order.
3. I'd call that a shartisan.
4. Do you consider the packaging, labels, etc. part of the product? I do in some ways, but I'm more interested in the product itself, not the package it comes in. I'd consider it a bonus if someone was hand making their jars, but I don't think it's a necessity to be an artisan.
5. Like? If you hand carved brush handles and glued in a Plisson knot, the handle would be artisan. The knot would not.
6. I'd say it's pretty easy to discern. Though I won't delve further into it given my position as a soap maker.

Since you brought it up, motivations play a very important part. I'd maintain that as soon as the artisan becomes more focused on money than the "art" they're creating, they are no longer an artisan.

Your responses are very well-considered. On your fourth point, I'm not sure that it's that easy to distinguish between the product and ancillary concerns like packaging. When it comes to some soaps, the scent and soap base are manufactured/designed by different people. One of my favorite soaps of all time was designed and created by an artisan, but the scent was commissioned by the artisan and crafted by a perfumer in Grasse. I'm not sure that would automatically disqualify this soap as being an artisan soap since it would probably fulfill all other conditions. I imagine this would account for your reply in point 5 also. While we might be able to distinguish between parts of a brush as being artisan or non-artisan, what do we call the brush as a whole? Is it an artisan brush or not? Is it only an artisan brush if 100% of the brush is artisan? If not, what percentage qualifies as "artisan"? Again, I'm not trying to pick on your excellent points, but am simply trying to demonstrate the difficulty with isolating a generalizable definition.

By the way, on point six, I'd love to hear your reasoning if you'd like to discuss it. As for my own personal take on the issue, I'm not sure that it is easy or even possible to discern with reliable accuracy a person's internal motivations, nor am I certain that profit and alternative motivations are mutually exclusive.

The soap you are speaking of as being scented by another company I assume is Nuavia. That should be considered an artisan soap imo because the product is the soap.

I'd agree with that (and I love Nuavia lol), but note how it wouldn't tick all the boxes since a major component of the actual product was developed in Grasse.

Your responses are very well-considered. On your fourth point, I'm not sure that it's that easy to distinguish between the product and ancillary concerns like packaging. When it comes to some soaps, the scent and soap base are manufactured/designed by different people. One of my favorite soaps of all time was designed and created by an artisan, but the scent was commissioned by the artisan and crafted by a perfumer in Grasse. I'm not sure that would automatically disqualify this soap as being an artisan soap since it would probably fulfill all other conditions. I imagine this would account for your reply in point 5 also. While we might be able to distinguish between parts of a brush as being artisan or non-artisan, what do we call the brush as a whole? Is it an artisan brush or not? Is it only an artisan brush if 100% of the brush is artisan? If not, what percentage qualifies as "artisan"? Again, I'm not trying to pick on your excellent points, but am simply trying to demonstrate the difficulty with isolating a generalizable definition.

By the way, on point six, I'd love to hear your reasoning if you'd like to discuss it. As for my own personal take on the issue, I'm not sure that it is easy or even possible to discern with reliable accuracy a person's internal motivations, nor am I certain that profit and alternative motivations are mutually exclusive.

The soap you are speaking of as being scented by another company I assume is Nuavia. That should be considered an artisan soap imo because the product is the soap.

I'd agree with that (and I love Nuavia lol), but note how it wouldn't tick all the boxes since a major component of the actual product was developed in Grasse.

True, and I personally prefer to buy from artisans that make the soap and scent.

There is an "artisan" who buys melt and pour soap base from Brambleberry, adds color and scent to it, then wraps it in cellophane with a label on it and claims it is "their" soap. People refer to this person as an artisan because they like them.
There is another soap maker who also uses melt and pour soap, but makes it herself. She blends her own fragrances, distills her own oils, renders her own tallow, but she is not an artisan because she uses melt and pour glycerin soap instead of cold process lye soap. (No, these examples are not hypothetical.)
I think we can see the subjectivity in defining artisanal products. Consider the following:
-Bespoke/couture clothing is made by tailors and seamstresses but we still call it bespoke even though they purchase fabric from weavers, who purchase wool, cotton, or silk from sheep, cotton, or silk worm farmers.
-Bakeries make bread from flour milled by grain mills who purchase the grain from farmers, who purchase their seeds from seed distributors and plant those seeds in soil that was just lying around made by no one, using water from a water source, and fertilizer from a fertilizer manufacturer.
-I know of no jewelers who mine their own gold, silver, copper, and gems.
I think there is a reasonable expectation that not all of the materials have to be produced by the artisan--I mean, artists don't make their own paint or weave their own canvases but they still get credit for being a painting's creator. Photographers are credited for photos without having made the film, emulsions, paper or chemicals to develop them.

There is an "artisan" who buys melt and pour soap base from Brambleberry, adds color and scent to it, then wraps it in cellophane with a label on it and claims it is "their" soap. People refer to this person as an artisan because they like them.
There is another soap maker who also uses melt and pour soap, but makes it herself. She blends her own fragrances, distills her own oils, renders her own tallow, but she is not an artisan because she uses melt and pour glycerin soap instead of cold process lye soap. (No, these examples are not hypothetical.)
I think we can see the subjectivity in defining artisanal products. Consider the following:
-Bespoke/couture clothing is made by tailors and seamstresses but we still call it bespoke even though they purchase fabric from weavers, who purchase wool, cotton, or silk from sheep, cotton, or silk worm farmers.
-Bakeries make bread from flour milled by grain mills who purchase the grain from farmers, who purchase their seeds from seed distributors and plant those seeds in soil that was just lying around made by no one, using water from a water source, and fertilizer from a fertilizer manufacturer.
-I know of no jewelers who mine their own gold, silver, copper, and gems.
I think there is a reasonable expectation that not all of the materials have to be produced by the artisan--I mean, artists don't make their own paint or weave their own canvases but they still get credit for being a painting's creator. Photographers are credited for photos without having made the film, emulsions, paper or chemicals to develop them.

So NOBODY can ever be a true artisan then by that definition, and that is a REALLY bad definition lol.

I make really good shave ice, but since I didn't make the pipes that collect the water that runs to my house, and I didn't cut down the actual trees and make paper pulp that make up the cones that I put the ice in.......well I guess it isn't mine.

Next you'll tell me that since I don't have a heard of sheep to raise to shear and get lanolin from the wool then I'm not allowed to use lanolin in anything either. It is really easy to take something to the ultimate realm of extreme stupidity lol.

I make really good shave ice, but since I didn't make the pipes that collect the water that runs to my house, and I didn't cut down the actual trees and make paper pulp that make up the cones that I put the ice in.......well I guess it isn't mine.

Next you'll tell me that since I don't have a heard of sheep to raise to shear and get lanolin from the wool then I'm not allowed to use lanolin in anything either. It is really easy to take something to the ultimate realm of extreme stupidity lol.

I think you should reread what I wrote. I'm saying much the same thing you are. No one creates all of his/her raw materials.
If the first soaper is an artisan, then surely the second soaper is as well?