The terms are blurring only if we let them or encourage them to blur.  Sloppy
language blurs the meaning of words.  (For those who have suffered through my
previous diatribes on semantics, I apologize: I know you're saying, "There he
goes again."  But honestly, folks, I don't think Museum-L is the place to
"debate" the meanings of words or render "opinions" about them.  Any good
dictionary (thanks to Leonard Will for mentioning a dictionary) will settle
the question.  The proper use of words such as "artist", "artisan", "maker",
or "manufacturer" can be determined easily by referring to a dictionary, and
I think you'll find that there is no debate.

Having rendered such a haughty notion, I urge everyone to consult a
dictionary first before using this forum for such a purpose.  I realize I
sound didactic, but I simply think the dictionary is a valuable tool which is
sadly neglected by far too many educated people.  There seems to be almost a
bias against it which I find puzzling.  People rebel against it, apparently
because they consider it "prescriptive" and confining, despite the fact that
lexicographers timidly proclaim, and presumably take great pains to ensure,
that it is merely DEscriptive in its definitions.  People seem to shun
dictionaries  because they either (a) don't trust the dictionary-makers to be
true to their creed of reporting current usage--which I think is a
presumptuous error (why not give them the benefit of the doubt and just take
them at their word, so to speak?)--or (b) they assume that language is such a
speeding juggernaut of change that every dictionary is hopelessly outdated by
the time it rolls off the presses--which I contend is a gross exaggeration.
I don't think we need to solicit "opinions" about the difference between
"artist" and "artisan" or "maker" vs. "manufacturer" any more than we need to
take a poll about the meaning of "walk" vs. "run".

Now let me backtrack!  What can be useful to museum people, since I would
guess that the impetus behind the question has to do, ultimately, with how we
accurately communicate or describe the creators of the artifacts in our
collections or exhibits, is to discuss where such words fit within a
hierarchy or schema of creators.  Here I recommend another tool, such as the
Art and Architecture Thesaurus, since the dictionary does have some
limitations in its ability to help you select the appropriate term for the
kind of precision you may need.  Since the dictionary does strive to report
"usage," one has to admit that the meanings of some words have blurred, and
some terms tend to overlap due to sloppy usage.  For example, it is all too
easy to compliment a skilled, meticulous artisan by exuding, "Say, you're a
real artist!", when all you mean is "You're good!"  In no time, one of the
corollary dictionary definitions of "artist" becomes a "really good
artisan"--not a very useful distinction.

Although dictionaries vary, lexicographers do try to maintain some
perspective over hyperbole and sloppy usage.  I find that the first
dictionary definition of a word tends to be the most precise and traditional.
 In trying to differentiate among the words cited in the original question, I
think you'll find that the first dictionary definitions of each will serve
you well.  "Maker" is a broad term which encompasses all kinds of creators,
and may be adequate as a prompt in cataloguing or describing a wide range of
objects.  But if you're going to encounter multiple makers for an item, you
need to differentiate the different types or roles of creators.  For example,
in cataloguing photographs, I long ago found that our original "maker" field
was inadequate and led to a failure to record the multiple makers who might
be involved in the production of a single photographic image.  Even if you
had the necessary information at hand, without the appropriate blanks or
properly labelled fields to fill, you could forget to transcribe it all.  We
used to blithely take "maker" to mean "photographer," forgetting to identify
other relevant creators, such as the printer or lab who made the print from
the photographer's negative, perhaps also an art director, etc.  As has
already been suggested, the "makers" of a mechanical object can include many
hands and/or minds--including perhaps an inventor, a designer, a manufacturer
(or multiple manufacturers of individual components), perhaps even the
distributor.  If the terminology used to extract and record the information
is inadequate or even off target, you may end up with data which is
misleading.  To use "manufacturer", with its production-line connotation, as
a single creator label, could be misleading in describing unique or handmade
objects.

NEW SUBJECT: JOB-HUNTING ON THIS LIST

And speaking of words and their meanings, the use of the term "banter" hardly
describes most of the argument over the use of this list for job-hunting.
"Bickering" was far more accurate, since "banter", according to my trusty
dictionary, means witty teasing.  I didn't see much that was witty.

The best argument against posting job requests on this list was offered in
earlier skirmishes on this subject.  If all who are job-hunting posted their
requests to the list (perhaps nearly half the membership, by all
indications), it would be glutted and totally unwieldy.  I have many museum
colleagues who have dropped off the list because the volume of mail is so
high, with or without such inquiries, and a major expansion of this use of
the list will kill it.  There would be nothing left but hungry job-seekers
talking to each other.  The most cogent argument offered against it during
the recent debate is simply that it is largely ineffective, a few contrary
success stories notwithstanding.  For example, I recently hired an assistant
for a short-term project from among applicants for unpaid internships (and
through contacts at a university), and I have avoided reading most of the
Museum-L job inquiries.

Incidentally, I have recently unsubscribed from my office because I'm just
too busy to handle Museum-L there.  I resubscribed at home because there is
still much information on the list which is useful to me, despite the
majority which is not.  If it becomes too unwieldy at home also, I'll be
forced to quit again.

I apologize for further burdening the list with this lengthy excursion.  I
too would rather discuss substantive museum issues than what the list is or
isn't good for.  I try to refrain from injecting comments like this until a
thread is already in progress.

David Haberstich

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://museums.state.nm.us/nmmnh/museum-l.html. You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to
[log in to unmask] The body of the message should read "Signoff
Museum-L" (without the quotes).