What is the definition of an Artisan?

Please, no arguments. Call me names if you wish.

I defy you to point to anything, anything at, all that is not composed entirely, 100% of chemicals.

I impose no limitations whatsoever on what you choose.

Please, no arguments. Call me names if you wish.

I defy you to point to anything, anything at, all that is not composed entirely, 100% of chemicals.

I impose no limitations whatsoever on what you choose.

Mickey Oberman the voice of reason - where things come from and what they're made of is often obfuscated in today's consumer culture seemingly obsessed with "natural" products (people do know what tallow is right?).  Basic chemistry.
My son is studying mining engineering and one of his Profs likes to say "If it cannot be grown, it must be mined." That doesn't go over well on product labels however

As someone new to crafts and handmade items, I have a serious question with regards to my new hobby.

When I make these by hand, from a natural piece of wood, original concept shape, does this make me a Slingshot Artist, Slingshot Artisan, Hobbyist, crafter or just a bum with a knife?

http://damnfineshave.com/showthread.php?...1#pid53621

As someone new to crafts and handmade items, I have a serious question with regards to my new hobby.

When I make these by hand, from a natural piece of wood, original concept shape, does this make me a Slingshot Artist, Slingshot Artisan, Hobbyist, crafter or just a bum with a knife?

http://damnfineshave.com/showthread.php?...1#pid53621

Bruce, I think that makes you awesome . Nice slingshot!

The word "artisanal" describes a process of production, not a level of quality. An artisan is someone who follows that process of production, regardless if the quality of the end result. Crappy artisans and garbage artisnal products exist. The word "art" implirs only 2 things:created from raw materials and invoking of emotional response from the observer or user. It doesnt say anything about aesthetics, beauty, quality, technique, or utility.

Soap making, regardless of the complexity of your scent profiles, is a fairly well documented process. You can muck about with ingredients, to fine tune specitic qualities, but the premise is the same. Its like making lasagna....you can add your own enhancements to accentuate aspects you find more important to the end result, but its still lasagna...or soap...its not something new and different...its still soap.

Now...you can be an artist in creating complex scent profiles, but you are still "merely" an artisan when making the soap. Because soap follows well established guidelines that result in the functional product, making minor changes in the specific ingredients used to achieve those results is still well documented. "Tweaking" is not the same as "creating", and lets face it the basic concept of soap hasnt changed in 100 years...only the specific ingredients available to cause those established reactions. The recipe has expanded, not changed...

The last thing I want to touch on is the "theft" of scent profiles.

Frankly, if an artist is capable of deterkining by virtue of smell and exoerience what oils were used to create a specific fragrance, why should they be prevented from using that profile? Copying, cloning, mimicing...its all part of capitalism. If you want to charge high dollar for a scent, you better have quality that warrants it, lest the artisan with a good nose and a less expensive product will get your business. Thats how capitalism and a free market work.

A soap maker copying well known fragrances is good marketing. They are offering familiar, well-liked scents in their own products and offering them for sale. There is nothing wrong with that. A soap maker discovering, or discerning, specific profiles to.provide a "copy cat" fragrance are taken advantage of known market responses to bring in customers. There is nothing wrong with that, motally or ethically.

The problem comes in when those copy-cat products are wrongly marketed as an original. THIS is an ethical dilemma, it is illegal, and it should be prevented and prosecuted at all costs.

As long as the clone or copy-cat is not marketed as the original, there no conundrum. Some people will happily use the lowerbpriced clone. Others will just as happily pay more for the original, and justofy itbin any way they are comfortable.

This is how the free market works. If we didnt have this type of tiered production, the market would fail, quality would falter, and we would be paying exorbitant prices for less-than stelkar products.

Copying forces higher quality. Innovation forces copying. And the cycle continues...

Lastly...I hope the petty disagreements go away. It is so unnecessary...

Sent from my LGL34C using Tapatalk

The last thing I want to touch on is the "theft" of scent profiles.

Frankly, if an artist is capable of deterkining by virtue of smell and experience what oils were used to create a specific fragrance, why should they be prevented from using that profile? Copying, cloning, mimicing...its all part of capitalism. If you want to charge high dollar for a scent, you better have quality that warrants it, lest the artisan with a good nose and a less expensive product will get your business. Thats how capitalism and a free market work.

I like that explanation, well said. It happens in EVERY industry out there, so why would shaving be exempt.

Food, clothes, electronics, music, cars, bikes, etc....all borrow ideas and concepts from others.

Great post BadDad! So from what I understand (by way of analogy), you'd distinguish between a knockoff Gucci bag (with a fake Gucci logo) and a knockoff Gucci bag that markets itself under another name with a different logo, with the marketing tag "inspired by Gucci bag model X"? That makes sense - I'd find the former worthy of prosecution, but the latter ethically objectionable. But if there was a third category, whereby the design of a Gucci bag was modified in an original manner and improved upon under a different label, that would be perfectly fine from my perspective.

@Bruce, to be clear, the objection isn't to the piecemeal borrowing of ideas and concepts. The objection is to complete and blatant ripoffs.

BadDad, I really like your distinction between artist and artisan on the making of a scent and soap. To me these are two different endeavors, though they can both be approached from an artisanal perspective.

The last thing I want to touch on is the "theft" of scent profiles.

Frankly, if an artist is capable of deterkining by virtue of smell and experience what oils were used to create a specific fragrance, why should they be prevented from using that profile? Copying, cloning, mimicing...its all part of capitalism. If you want to charge high dollar for a scent, you better have quality that warrants it, lest the artisan with a good nose and a less expensive product will get your business. Thats how capitalism and a free market work.

I like that explanation, well said.  It happens in EVERY industry out there, so why would shaving be exempt.

Food, clothes, electronics, music, cars, bikes, etc....all borrow ideas and concepts from others.

Yes, lifting ideas runs rampant in all industries. The particular problem that I believe exists with the fragrance industry, as well as the so-called artisan soap making industry, hence the inclusion of the argument here, is that certain soap makers are copying scents and then using the name of the famous scent as a selling point. As I stated earlier, if a soap maker sold the soap under a name of their own making, without reference to the famous maker, they would not have the sales they have for that particular product. They are, in essence, profiting off of the popularity of the other company. I see one soap maker in New Jersey who copies a variety of scents and then uses the same profiles the famous perfume houses use to describe their own work. While I disagree with this, at least this soap maker has the decency to not trade on the name of another company.

You don't see unknown shoe makers selling shoes "inspired by Nike" or a generic diet cola marketed as "our version of Diet Coke." They would be sued to the ground. For some reason in the fragrance industry and in the soap making industry, appropriating trade names is considered an acceptable practice. Many of you disagree with me, and that's fine. I just think that while we are discussing artisan soap makers, we should be discussing more than just the process of making soap insofar as it qualifies one to be considered an artisan. An artisan should also take the time and effort to be original in all facets of production.

The particular problem that I believe exists with the fragrance industry, as well as the so-called artisan soap making industry, hence the inclusion of the argument here

 

I asked a simple question in the OP "What is the definition of an Artisan?"

In this post http://damnfineshave.com/thread-what-is-...9#pid53589 I asked that the discussion on knockoffs be taken elsewhere.

If you want to talk about knock offs or push your agenda, do it elsewhere. If you have an opinion on the definition of "artisan", then please express it. Otherwise, please do not interfere in this discussion again as your agenda has nothing to do with the original question.  

thank you for your consideration.

This thread has been totally derailed, and has been reported to the moderators by the OP.  I would like to remind everyone to play nicely in the sandbox with everyone. Let's not derail this thread any further.

http://damnfineshave.com/thread-sticky-a...lease-read