tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2106815346229702986.post4513495138120359288..comments2024-03-21T00:17:37.281-07:00Comments on sherapop's salon de parfum: Are there Principles of Perfume Criticism? Or are judgments about perfumes all and only a matter of subjective taste?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger57125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2106815346229702986.post-69264676489521381572013-02-28T05:34:54.317-08:002013-02-28T05:34:54.317-08:00People should start using the words scent, fragran...People should start using the words scent, fragrance and perfume in a different way.<br />Perfume has a fragrance +bottle + package (in the past some didn't, but today they all have) + name (they all do, even if they are just numbers).<br />While scents and fragrances don't have these elements.<br />:-)taken all the kisses and hugs with me in my purse because i am kinda having the blues today!+ Q Perfume Bloghttp://www.maisqueperfume.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2106815346229702986.post-75336040793723694852013-02-28T05:31:27.823-08:002013-02-28T05:31:27.823-08:00Let's!Let's!+ Q Perfume Bloghttp://www.maisqueperfume.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2106815346229702986.post-51760378119755533202013-02-28T05:30:00.209-08:002013-02-28T05:30:00.209-08:00He does everything himself because he is a cheap l...He does everything himself because he is a cheap little man. And this is as far as I go concerning this matter. But it is ok if you like him. I used too in a very remote past of my life. I guess it is a phase, just like loving ponies, Celine Dion and barbie dolls...it will pass.+ Q Perfume Bloghttp://www.maisqueperfume.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2106815346229702986.post-25550077195874544812013-02-27T08:35:25.721-08:002013-02-27T08:35:25.721-08:00Dear Simone,
You raise the issue of credentials. ...Dear Simone,<br /><br />You raise the issue of credentials. Yes, it seems that because there is no “school of perfume criticism”, where one can earn a degree or even a certificate of competence, that there's something of a free-for-all. People stand up and proclaim themselves to be experts, or talk other people into conferring impressive-sounding titles upon them and then pretend that the conferral had nothing to do with their very own self-promotion campaigns. <br /><br />It's a rather clever act of sleight-of-hand, but it does not mean that the person is what the title implies. It just means that the person is a savvy marketer of himself.<br /><br />In my opinion, expertise in perfume criticism is an especially tricky case because people vary so much in their sensitivities to the substances of which perfumes are comprised. It seems quite clear that two equally knowledgeable and experienced people may arrive at completely opposite opinions about the value of a perfume simply because they smell different components to different degrees. To someone anosmic to certain musks, Serge Lutens Muscs Koublai Khan and Frédéric Malle Musc Ravageur may smell like manna from heaven. To a person who is hypersensitive to musk, they may both smell repulsive. So who is right? The only way that someone can serve as a guide to another wearer is if they happen to perceive the salient components (for example, musks) to a similar degree.<br /><br />So it can be helpful to read the reviews of people whose perceptions generally cohere with one's own. It can also be informative and useful to know that others perceive the perfume quite differently. I'd like to know, to be honest, whether someone out there somewhere is going to find a perfume repulsive, though I happen to love it. It is not my intention in wearing perfume to offend the people around me, so I like to know if a perfume causes other people discomfort or strife. That is one reason why I love to read reviews written by people who disagree radically with me. The other reason is that negative reviews can be highly entertaining. <br /><br />What becomes misleading is to pretend that one's own idiosyncratic tastes are authoritative in any way, and that is what the self-appointed critics do by publishing their works under misleading titles (suggesting that they are authorities and that people should heed their advice, when in fact the authors are effectively serving as product shills), and presenting themselves as experts about something (taste) about which no one is or can be a universal expert. Yes, we are all experts about our own tastes, but that's a far cry from being qualified to tell other people what they ought to like—and buy.<br /><br />Thank you so much for joining in on the conversation, Simone! I very much look forward to reading you here at the salon again soon, and I hope that you will comment on all of the posts! xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosherapophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14116821928196122529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2106815346229702986.post-69341789723499278222013-02-27T08:07:34.016-08:002013-02-27T08:07:34.016-08:00Dear Simone,
A propos of The Holey[sic] Book: I t...Dear Simone,<br /><br />A propos of The Holey[sic] Book: I think that there is nothing wrong, per se, with publishing a motley assortment of ramblings ranging from vignettes about one's past to one-liner jokes. What I dislike and take issue with is fobbing off such a work as a reference book. The title under which the Turin & Sanchez texts were published—a collection which strikes me as far more autobiographical than anything else—has had the effect that they are referred to now as “experts” by ignorant people the world over. <br /><br />In the recent Wall Street Journal review of “The Art of Scent” exhibit, the book is described as “the Oxford English Dictionary of perfume”. Another journalist, reviewing Jean-Claude Ellena's new book, referred to the Turin-Sanchez book as “unimpeachable”. Clearly, these journalists have not read the book. I wish that they would all read “A Found Review” (here at the salon), at which point they would discover that they are heralding as a reference book a text which is brim with ad hominem attacks and insults, not arguments and facts.<br /><br />Alas, hype works, and the publishers were savvy when they renamed the work (I read somewhere that it was originally titled “Songs and Pongs,” which is a perfect title, in my opinion) to make it sound as though it were authoritative, comprehensive, and even exhaustive. None of those is true, but that's what ignorant people who wish to sound as though they know what they are talking about assume when they call it the OED, etc.<br /><br />Is it a serious work of scholarship? No, of course not. But it has done well because there are no other books like it (claiming to be a “Guide”) and because perfume lovers are thirsty for any possible book on perfume (there are so very few). I am sorry to have to say this, because it sounds snobby, but it is nonetheless true: the people who get excited and rave about it do so in some cases because they have absolutely no idea what criticism is. Calling Mona di Orio “clearly delusional” is about as far from a reasoned critique of her work as a text could possibly be. <br /><br />Viewed soberly, the book is something of a joke, but the authors are enjoying a modicum of fame and, I imagine some pretty decent royalties, as a direct result of how it was promoted by their publishers. <br /><br />That's really all that I have to say about this particular topic. Let's move on to something more worthy of discussion... sherapophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14116821928196122529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2106815346229702986.post-65394469364216878292013-02-27T06:02:09.915-08:002013-02-27T06:02:09.915-08:00My dear Simone, what a pleasure to read you here! ...<br />My dear Simone, what a pleasure to read you here! Welcome to the salon de parfum! <br /><br />You've offered so many insights--quel embarras de richesses, chérie. I see that we agree on many points, including the “package deal” quality of perfumes, with bottle design and packaging an inextricable part of the whole production--at least as we encounter perfume in reality. Let me respond to your questions:<br /><br />You are right that I might have drawn on any number of perfumers to illustrate my point. So why did I pick Andy Tauer? The answer is that he exemplifies the truly independent perfumer. He does everything himself, from start to finish. He's the perfumer and the creative director. He even does his own production, as far as I've seen from his posts on Facebook. So basically he seems like a really good test case for the question whether any perfumer is an artist. He is beholden to nobody but himself. His values determine every property of the final product. If any perfumer is an artist, then he must be one. <br /><br />Yes, there are many other possible examples. I think that the “artisan indie” perfumers (I hesitate to say only “indie”, now that By Kilian won the Fifi award for “best indie” release), are closest to the idea of an artist. The question remains in their case, too, whether they are not accepting beauty as a necessary criterion. Beauty dropped out of the beaux arts picture--did it not?--in the twentieth century...<br />sherapophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14116821928196122529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2106815346229702986.post-25913228263176099612013-02-26T20:02:45.548-08:002013-02-26T20:02:45.548-08:00IMO a professional critic must:
1. be a person w...IMO a professional critic must:<br /><br />1. be a person who is publicly accepted and to a significant degree followed, having graduated from some course of recognized study or profession - that said - IMO only a PERFUMER can be a PROFESSIONAL critic of perfumes. Since there is no such degree offered by any university called perfume criticism or other training. The rest of us are a "social reviewers" that happens to like to give our opinions about fragrances in public. This is not a professional level thou. We could call ourselves "informal evaluators". Luca is included here, he is just making more money than the rest of us...<br />2. be a person who offers reasoned judgment or analysis, value judgment, interpretation, or observation - <br />That said, IMO pooping comments like "what were they thinking?" is not a professional evaluation of a fragrance. It does not contain anything but humor. So in that case LT could look for a stage in a standup comedians' club.<br /><br />So, having a huge collection of fragrances does not qualify anybody to be a professional perfume critic.<br />Loving fragrances since the age of 12 or 7 or 3 does not qualify anybody to be a professional perfume critic.<br />Being married to a self denominated perfume critic does not qualify anybody to be a professional perfume critic.<br />Launching a book called the guide - means "I made a compilation of many fragrances I have tried in my life and according to my taste I gave subjective opinions about them. It does not qualify anybody to be a professional perfume critic.<br />Not receiving a nobel prize does not qualify one to be a professional perfume critic. Writing a book about someone who did not receive a nobel prize also does not qualify one to be a perfume critic. <br /><br />I also have notice that they have contradictions in the guide and sometimes it seems that they have no method or no principles - but as far as I know he began to write the guide in 1994 and one is entitled to change opinions or consider something good at one point of life and later have a different opinion about it. So I think the guide lacks dates maybe...he should have completed each review with a date or tell his updated opinion about the fragrance - one knows that many perfumes were reviewed in the past and copied and pasted in the last issue of the same guide. This is why you found these contradictions.<br /><br />continuing:<br /><br />As Per Burr - same observations above. Just because the NYT called him a perfume critic it does not mean he is one - it means the NYT had him in their payroll and the position of that job was entitled "perfume critic" to the public - when in fact this was just a journalist position in a life style column.<br />He has no degree in perfumery to have a professional skill to be a true critic.<br />Writing about LT theory is not a degree in anything, but a journalistic job of research and writing.<br /><br />Anyways...I will come back for more opinions...<br />+ Q Perfume Bloghttp://www.maiqueperfume.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2106815346229702986.post-67241929648050633702013-02-26T20:01:06.379-08:002013-02-26T20:01:06.379-08:00About Luca Turin and Tania Sanchez -
I do have a ...About Luca Turin and Tania Sanchez - <br />I do have a problem when I read things like "what were they thinking?' - this provides no technical information about a fragrance at all. This is simply a joke - this is not a professional review of a fragrance.<br /><br />The smell of a russian cab... - also not technical - just an olfactive memory of a man who loves to show where he has been or lived. Snob and not professional.<br /><br />Sanchez - only Luca loves her insights. I don't believe the rest of us does.<br /><br />I know for a fact that one brand received bad "reviews" from the couple only because they refused to send them the perfumes - the owners told me so.<br /><br />I agree with you that the book is more like a kilt of memories, personal tastes or even likes or deslikes of people (here I mean brands, perfumers)in a personal level - like in the above mentioned example.<br /> <br />I won't extend my comments about TS because I told you in facebook what I think. This has no intellectual value here.<br /><br />About perfume professional criticism:<br /><br />I researched the meaning of the word critic and I found the following:<br /><br />A critic according to Merrian Webster is:<br /><br />1. one who expresses a reasoned opinion on any matter especially involving a judgment of its value, truth, righteousness, beauty, or technique - in this case, I believe we all are. N'est pas?<br /><br />2. one who engages often professionally in the analysis, evaluation, or appreciation of works of art or artistic performances<br /><br />- in that case, Mr. Luca Turin and all other blogs having sponsorship or gaining $ to write the blog.<br /><br />according to the dictionary...<br /><br />Wiki:<br />A critic is a respectable professional who makes a living selling their value judgments concerning the avant garde from the perspective of the people. Ideally the critic is the mentally endowed jack-of-all-trades but master-of-none, and they see some real, big picture, but only fuzzily. The engine of the critic is philosophy, but criticism in its informal aspect is a general term that refers to a common aspect of most human expression, and it need not necessarily imply the judgment of a visionary.<br /><br />+ Q Perfume Bloghttp://www.maiqueperfume.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2106815346229702986.post-33842168638248137102013-02-26T19:59:55.771-08:002013-02-26T19:59:55.771-08:00Hi darling, I am profoundly emotional! You are a t...Hi darling, I am profoundly emotional! You are a true passionate for fragrances. Who on earth would take so much time to write such beautifully written and well researched articles? I wish I had the time to try...<br />Anyways, I have some comments to make about some of the issues you raised:<br /><br />I see perfume as a combination of 3 crafts: fragrance creation; bottle design and package design.<br />I don't think you can separate the elements like Chandler wants to do, or rename perfumes with numbers and letters.<br />I also think that perfume is a product - one develops a fragrance to sell.<br />It can be elevated to a state of art, like a car or a wine could - for its uniqueness, quality and creativity.<br /><br />Even small brands, niche brands such as Andy Tauer's are making perfume to sell - he is not selling as much as SJP or any other celeb because he is a small brand that has found an strategic market called "niche".<br />I agree with master Ellena - niche perfumery just has a different approach of marketing advertising.<br />And why the hell you mentioned Andy Tauer??? So many brilliant perfumers out there and you remembered him????<br /><br />So, it is a product that can also be referred sometimes to art IMO. regardless the profit from it or who is commissioning it.<br /><br />+ Q Perfume Bloghttp://www.maisqueperfume.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2106815346229702986.post-2086305697015268522012-09-15T16:29:22.164-07:002012-09-15T16:29:22.164-07:00Here's a helpful link, Trollman:
http://www.m...Here's a helpful link, Trollman:<br /><br />http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/relevantsherapophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14116821928196122529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2106815346229702986.post-8288852584012395222012-09-15T16:21:56.666-07:002012-09-15T16:21:56.666-07:00Keyword, Trollman: 'relevant'. (-;Keyword, Trollman: 'relevant'. (-;sherapophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14116821928196122529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2106815346229702986.post-29327535183765850712012-09-15T15:52:38.647-07:002012-09-15T15:52:38.647-07:00sherapop's salon de parfum
Philosophical refle...sherapop's salon de parfum<br />Philosophical reflections on perfume and perfumery: An exploration of aesthetic, epistemological, metaphysical, moral, and ontological issues. Relevant comments are most welcome—whether you agree or disagree.<br /><br />HOWEVER...she is a liar that censors and deletes. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2106815346229702986.post-76424166805795162352012-08-26T18:39:57.045-07:002012-08-26T18:39:57.045-07:00Thank you Sherapop for welcoming anonymous me (cra...Thank you Sherapop for welcoming anonymous me (crazyaboutlairderien on Fragrantica)<br /><br />I've thought about what it is then, and came up with the comparison of music. There is an piece of music, an orchestra to play it, and a conductor. I think noses are like conductors. Which seems at first sight a not fitting comparison, because people tend to speak of chords in a perfume, but I still believe it makes some sense :)<br /><br />You can ask thousand music afficinados (sp?) who their favorite conductor is and you will get different answers, different strokes for different folks right? <br /><br />Then there is the question of quality of the orchestra, in fragrance terms, the ingredients. You cannot give a well respected nose crap ingredients and expect them to create a masterpiece. Then there is the question of what is considered a quality ingredient! All natural? I LOVE Molecule 01 so I would say no :)<br /><br />Very interesting thread by the way, really gets my brain moving, I like that :)<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2106815346229702986.post-31979450205684846902012-08-21T19:18:27.590-07:002012-08-21T19:18:27.590-07:00You are so right to bring up the "dysfunction...You are so right to bring up the "dysfunctional craft becomes an art" issue. What an interesting take on ELdO Sécrétions Magnifiques. We discussed that case a while back in two posts called "The Tower of Babel". <br /><br />The problem I found was that the people who stand by SM seem to want to say that it is a wearable and even good perfume! This really muddies the waters. As someone who finds it a failure as a perfume—a non-perfume or a smell/stench—I was prepared to concede that SM is a conceptual work of art. But then, to my amazement, people went to the mat to defend the perfumic beauty of the thing! Even Turin describes that perfume as a perfectly respectable aquatic floral. Of course, if it's true that he is anosmic to certain musks, then he probably does not smell what those of us who find it repulsive do.<br /><br />I would like very much to explore this idea of perfume versus design/craft and see where it leads to. Lots of perfumistas who love perfume and appear to think that it is an art also invoke folk adages such as "Perfume should smell good" in their reviews. This makes me think that the best analogies are things like genre fiction or haute cuisine. Just as it's a part of the very concept of cuisine that the end product be edible, so too, must perfume be wearable! But people seem to resist the comparison of perfumery to cooking, which is supposed to be a "mere" craft, I guess.<br /><br />Anyway, I'll post on the topic of art versus crafts soon!<br /><br />Thank you for these excellent follow-up remarks, meine liebe sokraticsche Sonnenblume!sherapophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14116821928196122529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2106815346229702986.post-66481088433448974022012-08-21T19:00:53.619-07:002012-08-21T19:00:53.619-07:00These are all excellent points and questions, Brya...These are all excellent points and questions, Bryan. To begin with, I don't attach too much importance to Turin and Sanchez because I do not believe that they are rigorous thinkers. To me, they seem closer to Sarah Palin than to critics of any stripe--about any topic, whether aesthetics or otherwise. Their so-called cultural criticism, for example, of the likes of Paris Hilton, Kate Moss, and Britney Spears, is just hackneyed beyond belief and seems very petit bourgeois to me. <br /><br />Related to this is their pseudo-populist attempt to tear down “expensive” niche brands (including Creed...), as though such houses were insufferably monarchical and somehow undemocratic. It's really quite absurd (see PERFUME IS NOT MILK for more on this...). The truth is that the difference in cost between "expensive" niche brands and moderately priced mainstream designer perfumes (at least when purchased at MSRP) is pretty trivial, in the grand scheme of economic things. Perfume is a luxury product. There are no human or natural rights to perfume any more than there are human rights to Rolex watches!<br /><br />As for why they didn't give a damn what Le Labo said, well, as you point out: they didn't even understand it! Sounds like Le Labo made a good call though, in relenting, rather than suffer the embarrassing fate of having been exposed for the crime of refusing to give them free perfume. Yes, the authors really let DelRae and Montale have it—that'll show them!!!!!. My goodness, there is a whole lot of spitting in the wind in The Holey[sic] Book. <br /><br />I think that Anonymous, above, summed it up best: the bottom line was always money, so trying to find any deeper significance in their ramblings is bound to be an exercise in frustration. I give up! Time for us to philosophize about perfume rather than try futilely to make sense of inconsistencies, incoherence, and what is manifestly pseudo-criticism.<br /><br />Now, what do I think about the companies—about what they are doing? Well, I think that the big companies are completely and only profit driven, just as I describe in the post above in discussing Victoria's Secret. Yes, EL has their pseudo-niche "Private Collection", and, indeed, the EL Group even includes Tom Ford, but all of this is about garnering as much of the market share as possible. Let us not forget that EL controls Clinique and thus exerts close to hegemony over upscale women's cosmetics and facial care in U.S. department stores. Business, business, business. That is the end of their story, I think.<br /><br />Where I start to wonder about art is in cases involving independent houses which really seem to have a vision. It seems to me that, more generally, this is what perfumistas who insist that perfume is art are thinking about. Does anyone think that Coty is doing much "olfactory art" these days? Hmmm...<br /><br />I've been thinking about the bigger and rather vexed debate about art versus crafts, and will be posting something on that topic in the days to come.<br /><br />Thank you very much for bringing these fascinating issues to our attention, Bryan—it's always a pleasure to read you!sherapophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14116821928196122529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2106815346229702986.post-7130867778717346662012-08-21T10:06:24.599-07:002012-08-21T10:06:24.599-07:00There's a quote in Hebrew which says (translat...There's a quote in Hebrew which says (translated): "There's no point in arguing over taste and smell." Which suggests that the subjectivity of how these senses perceive flavors and odors precludes meaningful discussion and debate from happening. It seems to put them on the same bar stool as conversations about politics and religion. I disagree with this idea, BUT, must point out that Luca Turin must not be much of a Frank Zappa fan, as Le Labo initially refused his request for samples by stating, "Writing about perfume is like dancing about architecture," which he admits went over his head. But one has to wonder if Le Labo had a point. If you can't write anything meaningful about perfume, then your words are as redundant as submitting Frank Gehry's designs to ballet. Le Labo was apparently skeptical about the legitimacy of Turin & Sanchez's endeavor, but eventually relented based on a commercial fear of having something starkly bad written about their products. This entire transaction between Le Labo & The Guide's writers leads me to think that there is a disconnect between the true industry players, and those hovering on its outskirts, who indulge in commentary with the pretension of being cultural critics. Is this disconnect any different from the divide between film critics and Hollywood royalty? Or lit reviewers and novelists? Baseball players and commentators? Not really, it appears that Turin and Sanchez are perfectly aligned and within a cogent sphere of thought with their ideas, just as the industry holds them at arm's length is unsurprising. But there was a hint of a key difference in Le Labo's statement to Turin. It suggested that the company expected people to misunderstand their professional position by attempting to align perfumery with art. Their comparison was between dance (an art) and architecture - which is pure design. So the message wasn't borne of ignorance, but rather of stating their self, their identity, to "pre-empt" the predictable attempt by those in Turin's world to do the defining for them. Naturally, this went over his head as well, as he follows this explanation by saying that he let "Tania sort them out," which assumes they needed sorting out in the first place - which they had assured him in one simple phrase, culled from Zappa, they didn't. <br /><br />My point in this line of thought is to say that few people bother to ask the suits what their self perception is. The press kits send out fluff; what about going to the heart of Estee Lauder's company, and asking the execs what they think their concern peddles in? If it's culture one is after, then they will know that. If it's practical commercial design, product placement, pop-culture references that are the goal, this will be the unabashed company line, which can then be supposed as compatible or incompatible with an outsider's more-aloof overview. I don't see that happening with Turin, Sanchez, Burr. I see an attempt to define things without even bothering to ask the real product-makers (those who dictate what gets made) what exactly their objective, their very purpose is. Puzzling.Bryan Rosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180684622117941496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2106815346229702986.post-6701524899283939632012-08-20T04:13:44.470-07:002012-08-20T04:13:44.470-07:00Dear Sherapop, thanks for your compliments. Always...Dear Sherapop, thanks for your compliments. Always glad if I can help :))<br />over-educated: yes, I'm aware of that. But on the other hand, I have the impression to live in a society in which only those are right that make the most nasty, loudest remarks. Or in other words: The one who makes the loudest and smelliest farts is the one who's right. (On this issue there's a wonderful essay in this week's Der Spiegel) I think that erudition (at least for me) has only one goal: Herzensbildung, to understand (and protect) the humane. <br />Gehry: well, I think it's more about a partner who understands and shares the artist's visions instead of critisizing them or inhibiting them. I think Gehry's first wife was just completely dissatisfied with him and Gehry, presumably, spent more time pleasing and appeasing her than with what really mattered to him. One might ask: Why share your life with someone who doesn't like and accept you the way you are? And I think if this is the case it's best for both to seperate. You need someone who supports you and whom you can support in their lives' journey.<br />ELdO: yes, there's a certain trend to declare design that doesn't work "art" when the piece in question was made by someone famous. :)))) there's a chaise-longue by Corbusier. It's completely uncomfortable, but what's worst: in order to use it you better chop off your arms, because sitting in it you don't know what to do with your arms. now, had this chaise longue been done by a joiner, people would have critisized him/her. They would have told him/her to find another trade because as a joiner s/he didn't amount to much. But as the chaise longue had a famous creator, it was declared art. Don't get me wrong. I don't mind, as long as people are aware of the implications. (Think about dresses. When girls don't find dresses that fit they don't blame the industry. They put the blame on themslves and go on rigid diets. Similarly, when you don't know what to do with your arms it's not your body's fault. The chaise longue doesn't do its job properly)) I think Corbusier was a very good architect. (But he didn't understand much about sitting in a chaise longue).<br />Chandler Burr: well, I guess he was looking for a job and he found/created himself one. Some of the things he does are fairly interesting. e.g. when he makes people smell ingredients and then asks them whether according to them the ingredient was natural or synthetic. I found that very illuminating because one can be dead wrong about that. I am also curious about the untitled series. That (so far) looks like an interesting project to me. But at the end of the day he's a salesperson. And as such he needs to things: something to sell and someone willing to buy. As long as there's awareness about that, I don't have any problems with it. He could sell anything with pretty much the same enthusiasm. Currently it happens to be perfume :))).<br />Bis zum nächsten Mal, Girasole.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2106815346229702986.post-66925884493238754562012-08-19T08:40:37.935-07:002012-08-19T08:40:37.935-07:00Dear Sun,
Thank you so much for these incredibly ...Dear Sun,<br /><br />Thank you so much for these incredibly insightful observations. Yes, you're right: there does seem to be a problem with denying outright that perfumery is an art. Is any medium excluded a priori from use by artists? If not, then why can a perfumer not also be an artist? This is an excellent point and probably explains part of the resistance of people to the idea that perfumery is not an art, taken all together.<br /><br />Looked at as a whole, perfumery is obviously an industry and a profession, and it does not make sense to say that all perfume is art anymore than it does to say that all writing is literature. In fact, most writing is *not* literary at all. It serves a function, a purpose. The more I think about this question, the more I'm leaning toward comparing perfumery to genre fiction (as I mentioned in a reply to Christos, above). I need to develop this idea further but I'd like to thank you here for pointing out that sweeping generalizations—whether for or against the claim that perfumers are artists—may all be false! Maybe we just cannot make grand categorical claims in this case. Although, for the reasons I give in the original post above, I myself do not believe that the people who create scents for laundry detergent and furniture polish and diapers, etc., are artists anymore than I believe that the people who design the grocery store circular advertisements are.<br /><br />Your final point, about the state of perfumista-hood is also excellent. I've been wondering whether we have not created a monster by this frenzy of testing and reviewing everything, which provokes houses to produce more and more perfumes more and more rapidly. It seems to be spinning out of control. Are we to blame? <br /><br />I've been noticing that there is a new breed of perfumista out there, who appears not to buy any bottles of perfume! They test samples acquired from decanters and friends, but are they consumers of perfume? What a strange phenomenon... I recently read a review of a perfume by Histoires de Parfums at the end of which the reviewer said that s/he was considering the possibility of buying samples from the house! Not a bottle, but samples! The *possibility* of buying *samples*!<br /><br />Thank you so much Sun for raising these important questions! I look forward to reading more of your insights here! (-;sherapophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14116821928196122529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2106815346229702986.post-68185042652517153012012-08-18T12:04:45.260-07:002012-08-18T12:04:45.260-07:00Bail with me because I am sure my thoughts will be...Bail with me because I am sure my thoughts will be rambling more than a bit. I thought about various things in connection with the discussion here while I was doing some chores in the house. Means I run back and forth to jot down a few notes. I come more and more to the conclusion, in accordance with anonymous, that perfume is not an art. at least not in the definition of art on the same level a painting by Rembrandt is considered to be art or Michelangelo statue is considered to be art. It would be a blasphemy to put a perfume on the same level with Mona Lisa in the Louvre. now furthermore if perfume is not art, is perfumery a form of art or would it ever be right to use the two words "artitistic perfumery"? I tend to lean towards saying "the creation of a perfume is like designing a car". Bluntly said and very simple. So now we got rid of "art", got rid of the "artists" aka the perfumers. Now what is left? A talented person with an idea, a vision, capable to mix natural and synthetic compounds. Who either had the luck and attended an accredited school or institute or is even self taught. So who is this person then after we or in this case I excluded: artist? Is a perfumer still an artist even though we/I said a perfume is not a piece of art and mixing some compounds is not an artistic process more a design process?<br />What is his or her intention? Is perfumery or the "design" of a perfume a means of self expression? Or is it, depending on the context, a means to generate cash. Cash for the individual or cash for the big company behind the perfumer for which the perfumer just might be contracted once, twice or have current employment.<br /><br />With what anonymus said above: art is never an object of alteration or modification. Art is only an object of restoration in order to preserve it for a longer time, and/or in order to keep its original looks. So the reformulation of a fragrance then could be the equivalent of adding a Pinocchio nose to Mona Lisa. Doing this Mona Lisa would never look the same. A reformulated fragrance does not smell exactly like the first version ever launched. <br />I know I am leaving the path here and am offtopic. <br /><br />Another thought. With all the perfumes being released month after month, year after year: is the quest of the so called perfumistas just an artificially created desire that can be expressed/lived and exist best in a capitalistic society, in its present extend? Where would perfumery and all the perfumers be without the world wide web? Just wondering. Just bringing a few thoughts which are in no particular order and for sure off topic onto this screen<br />Sunnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2106815346229702986.post-19185159617224647822012-08-18T10:45:20.543-07:002012-08-18T10:45:20.543-07:00Hello, Sun, and welcome to the salon! Thank you ve...Hello, Sun, and welcome to the salon! Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts on this topic. <br /><br />You are so right that different people have completely different approaches to fragrances! I've been planning to post something on this topic soon, "The Many Uses (None of Which are Abuses) of Perfume". <br /><br />Sometimes in our perfumista microcosm we begin to lose sight of the hands-on reality of perfume use--even our own! It's simply a fact that people use and appreciate perfume in very different ways. When we obsess about perfumery as an art, we forget that it really does play a variety roles in people's lives. As an example, this summer has been very hot in Boston, so I've used a ton of cologne. I am using it in a very practical way: to cool myself off! Is there anything wrong with that? Am I disregarding the aesthetic value of the colognes which I use in this way? <br /><br />A propos of your remarks on Turin and Sanchez: Well, as you know, the notion of a "Bible" of fragrance never flew with me. I think that as The Holey[sic] Book becomes progressively more irrelevant with the launch of thousands of new perfumes, people will follow your lead and stow their copy in the attic or use it as a netbook stand, which is the primary use I've made of my copy. (-; You are right: the only thing that matters is what you like.<br /><br />I agree with you about the point made by Anonymous regarding reformulation as evidence for the design hypothesis--see my response, above...<br /><br />I think that you are really on to something when you say that "perfumery is just a creative/artistic process from the idea/inspiration to the final product". I would go further and say all the way to the experience and how we interpret it. So we can react to perfumes by writing creative reviews and thus extending the process even further! <br /><br />Thank you so much for sharing your ideas with us here at the salon de parfum, Sun! I hope that you will join us again soon!sherapophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14116821928196122529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2106815346229702986.post-62673085753732582012-08-18T10:28:45.496-07:002012-08-18T10:28:45.496-07:00So true, Aromi: only your own nose knows what'...So true, Aromi: only your own nose knows what's best for you! xxxooosherapophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14116821928196122529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2106815346229702986.post-67663271506484849152012-08-18T10:20:58.374-07:002012-08-18T10:20:58.374-07:00Dear Anonymous, welcome to the salon de parfum! I&...<br />Dear Anonymous, welcome to the salon de parfum! I'm happy that you're happy to be able to post here under your lurker cloak. The only comments which I delete are those which are irrelevant to the topic of discussion. People are free to express themselves here, but not to sell viagra. Lol (whoops now I'm going to draw porn traffic with that word). Whoops, now I'm going to draw porn traffic with both of those words …) (-;<br /> <br />You have made a number of interesting points. One is that the reality of reformulation establishes that perfume is design rather than art. That is a very fruitful idea, it seems to me (and Sun agrees, as you can read in the below comment). Reformulation sometimes seems like minor editing, but other times it is much more drastic, creating an entirely different perfume. So how can a new perfume continue to bear the old name? That is the question. There is no (other) area of art in which this happens, so your idea is very helpful. The "olfactory artists" who create perfumes lose all control over what happens to them subsequently—except when the perfumer is also the creative director, as in the case of someone like Andy Tauer. <br /><br />That's the rare exception, however. The rule seems to be that companies own the perfumes and can do with them as these please. As profit-making entities, they generally base their decisions not on artistic but economic considerations. Perfumes owe their birth to perfumers but their continued existence to the companies which decide to sustain them. They can withdraw that support abruptly by discontinuing the perfume or transforming it into something else. All of this coheres better with the picture of perfume as design than with that of perfume as art.<br /><br />As far as the contradictions in The Holey[sic] Book are concerned, my impression is that the authors did not really think through what they were doing. This is why they oscillate between comments which seem genuinely intended to help shoppers decide what to buy and comments which seem to be making lofty proclamations about art. <br /><br />The high rating given to “soiled underpants” does not seem to me to be so much of a contradiction as it is an expression of taste. Turin seems to love every perfume that reminds him of sex. (Latex rubber, anyone?) He even says that the packing of EldO Sécrétions Magnifiques made him drool. And, yes, it received five stars and was lauded as a masterpiece. So, on that point, I'd have to disagree with you, Anonymous. Turin seems genuinely to like the scent of soiled underpants and related things. (-;<br /><br />I agree that snobbery and pretentiousness is a sociological phenomenon—and it won't be going away anytime soon! But you are right that once one comes to appreciate the intrinsically subjective nature of perfume experience, then it doesn't make a lot of sense to issue sweeping decrees about absolute goodness and badness. Honestly, I find remarkable the way Turin and Sanchez basically dismiss the issue of quality materials. How can a niche perfume crafted of beautiful, high-quality materials receive one star and be rated lower than a chemical soup? That I will never understand. Those judgments make me wonder whether their nerve endings are fully functioning. Another possibility is that the whole production is about the shameless promotion of certain products and the “dressing down” of certain perfumers....<br /><br />The disagreement between Turin and Burr on Prada Infusion d'Iris basically sums up the problem. If two people deemed to be expert perfume critics cannot even agree on a question so basic as whether a given perfume is any good at all, then I think that we have established that such judgments can only be subjective. That would seem to imply that there are no experts in this area, because the objects of critique are simply not susceptible of objective judgment!<br /><br />Thank you so much for these interesting comments, Anonymous! I hope to read you here again!sherapophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14116821928196122529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2106815346229702986.post-3775003889107437292012-08-18T07:38:20.021-07:002012-08-18T07:38:20.021-07:00People in certain "communities" ( cough,...People in certain "communities" ( cough, cough, cough ) have ostracized you, in the past, for voicing your opinions about authors of what they perceive as Grail books. I suppose it's their choice to view the ramblings of a select few as the voice of reason and authority. I have always followed my own nose ( like you ) and attempt to persuade others to sample and decide for themselves. These authors may be very knowledgeable and highly respected in the "industry". Bottom line however is if something they eschewed smells terrific to you, then it's good to go and to hell with opinions.AromiEroticihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07519782942559405944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2106815346229702986.post-50873893000927208712012-08-18T06:05:16.456-07:002012-08-18T06:05:16.456-07:00As a pure answer to the question above, the second...As a pure answer to the question above, the second one, I think that judgmentes and/or opinions about perfume are subjective. So is taste in general, regardless of the nature. Whether it is clothes, wine, coffee. I mean it is an endless list. Fragrances are perceived individually. the only part that is defined are the notes, the category. And that is about it. Whether you think the rose fragrance of xyz is great or not, whether I think it is great or maybe lousy? subjective and based on the individual smelling it. thus said a specific fragrance can be good on me and even bad on me. I myself as the "wearer" of a specific fragrance can drool over one fragrance and the next time I dont like it as much as I did the other day. To me the writing of Luca Turin and Mrs Sanchez is for my own personal judgement and perception as necessary as a hole in my head. I received the book as a present a while ago. I flipped through, what I noticed doing so were personal opinions of either one of them or even both of them. And that is it. Why would I buy a fragrance based on them? Yes, I do read blogs and reviews. I find them interesting even though they are subjective as well. Some of the reviews, depending on the context, may have the intention to sell a fragrance. Is perfumery an art? In a way yes. There is a creative process upfront and without this process there wont be the fragrance as a result of it. And even with the creative process in the beginning art can turn into mass production given the quantities thrown onto the market. <br />Maybe we all have an approach to fragrances, perfumery etc that is to complicated. does perfume have to be a piece of art? And what is the definition of art here? I like a fragrance or fragrances out of the so called maintream sector. So what does that tell about me? I have a bad taste? I like mass production because usually mass production goes together with a good (maybe cheap retail price)? Am I a real connoisseur or can consider myself the same if I only like Haute Perfumerie? Who defines who I am or do I just define who I am based on my likes and dislikes? Personally I see it more or less simple and easy. There are fragrances out there which I like and which I dont like. from the so called niche perfumery or artitistic perfumery and out of the mainstream sector. I like the notes of a fragrance, I like the development, it gives me a certain feel, it enhances a certain mood and most of all it brings back memories. all this makes me chose and judge a fragrance. I have not read the Emporer of Scent as of yet. I dont think I will. I am obviously not interested. The LT and TS "bible"? Not sure about the whereabouts, somewhere on a shelf. obviously not important to me cuz then I would know the exact whereabouts. <br /><br /> I like the part anonymous above pointed out with perfume not being an art based on reformulation. very valid point. Maybe perfumery is just a creative/artitistic process from the idea/inspiration to the final product. <br /><br />I know I am rambling here back and fourth. My initial thoughts and 2scents to this topicSunnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2106815346229702986.post-3015482263888281482012-08-17T08:58:19.545-07:002012-08-17T08:58:19.545-07:00This is such a great argument: if the essence of p...<br />This is such a great argument: if the essence of perfume is to be beautiful, then does that not refute the claim that it is art? Of course, many (ignorant...) people cling to the pre-twentieth-century idea of art as beauty, but what you are saying is that perfume as we wear it is, at best, a form of design. Come to think of it, design is fashion, is it not? And our judgments of perfume do seem to be context-dependent in just the way that our judgments of fashion seem to be. <br /><br />Wearing high-waisted, bell-bottom jeans today just looks stupid and wrong, though it was considered quite fashionable not too long ago. Perfumes such as Giorgio and Carolina Herrera (which I am coincidentally testing today), smell "very 1980s", as we say in reviewing perfumes. Why? Because our tastes have been molded to reject those sorts of scents today... Who out there is wearing Dior Poison? Okay, someone is, but none of my friends. (-;<br /><br />Now, people who want to say that ELdO Sécrétions Magnifiques is an artwork, can still do so, but is it a perfume? It seems as though these are two entirely different topics, and this was one constant source of frustration and consternation in reading The Holey[sic] Book: at times, the authors seem to be attempting to dictate hoi polloi taste; at other times, they seem to be attempting (unsuccessfully...) to do art criticism.<br /><br />Thank you so much for opening up all of these avenues of thought, Girasole, meine liebe schöne sokratische Sonnenblume Schwester! (-;sherapophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14116821928196122529noreply@blogger.com