<p>There’s been much debate about whether artifact kinds have real essences or if they are merely conventional kinds. Several proposals have been advanced that aim to give accounts of artifact kinds that satisfy the conditions for real kinds, but a concerted evaluation of their merit hasn’t yet been offered, which this paper provides. I survey realist commitments, and argue realists are primarily motivated by mind-independence, while considering four realist accounts of artifact kinds. I then give a twofold argument against accepting realist accounts of artifact kinds. First, I criticize the underlying motivation of realism as unjustified. Second, I argue that the realist accounts fail to satisfy their own requirements or can’t maintain a principled distinction between real and nonreal kinds. The realists either need to radically revise our ordinary views of artifact kinds or reject the reality of artifact kinds. I conclude that we shouldn’t be realists about artifact kinds.</p>