Recently shafts made a thread about sampling fragrances blindly. This is an interesting topic with several surprising implicit connections. I gave it some thought. Reason for the viewpoint of this text is that popular opinion seems to be that knowledge we have is making it impossible for us to be objective. I'll try to argue this is not all there is to it. I will examine the effects our pre-kowledge might have in our experience of a fragrance.
We all agree, atleast to some extent, that knowing the product we are testing certainly has an effect on the way we perceive it. Price, brand, nose, reputation, packaging, name, concept, reviews and many other attributes combine for a set of presuppositions. It is usual and natural to think that this restricts us from perceiving the fragrance as it is in itself. This is obviously true. Yet it is not the whole story. Way more interesting question is, if all of this might have some advantages as well. I believe it does - in many ways.
Let's start from the name. I tend to think, that name is an integral part of an artwork. Naming a painting in certain way gives us a hint in what way we should approach it. Same goes for novels, music and sculptures. I see no reason why this shouldn't be the case in fragrances as well. Not naming an artwork can also be a statement - usually not a strong one, though. I am not at all a fan of some pieces of postmodern art, where we have a banal everyday object; by naming it and taking it to an art exhibition we make it a part of the artworld. It is usually boring and contentless. Witty at best. Once the statement is made, it's well and truly over. While one point here is, that it might make us see a commonplace object in new light, to see beauty in something we haven't looked as an object of potential aesthetic value before, the actual statement is that works of art can not be defined by any innate attributes. Thus we will have to rely on a conception of the artworld. This is not very interesting in our case, so I will not go further here.
What is important for us is the power pre-knowledge can hold in a positive, enrichening sense. To follow philosopher Arthur Danto's example; naming a painting which is nothing but a red square in different ways has a huge effect on how we perceive it. We can name it "The Israelites crossing the Red Sea", "Kierkegaard's Mood", "The Red Square" or we can choose to not name it at all. We would be hard-pressed to say they are the same work of art at all!
Just consider Tauer's L'Air du Desert Marocain; if we wouldn't know the name, the fragrance would certainly lose some of it's evocative nature! I don't think any of us would have described this fantatic scent as smelling like Moroccan desert air if we didn't know the name, which means it doesn't actually smell like it, it's just a fantastic abstraction. Messe de Minuit is another similar case.
While there are some other interesting cases, I think that in our case it makes sense to broaden this name issue to all pre-knowledge without making this idea too much damage. Knowing the list of notes can help us in making some distinctions, picking up notes and accords, understanding the evolution of a fragrance more clearly. Reviews is another tool I see as mostly positive. There are alot of great scents I would have not grown to like had it not been some fantastic reviews and reviewers. This point is more practical than philosophical, yet important all the same. There are way too many fragrances in the world for one person. Reviews, opinions, nose behind the scent, the list of notes and other information help us pick the scents we should sample in the first place. Reading that some scent might take several wearings to get into can be another important indicator. Without information like this we would be absolutely blind in the world of perfumes.
I could go on and on, but I'm sure you understand my main point; last time I wrote a text that combined philosophy, aesthetics and perfumes, I got overtly excited and wrote a very long text. Now I will have to restrict myself. To clarify the title I borrowed from Immanuel Kant; in this particulat case the first part of the paragraph would mean, that reading and studying perfumes without ever smelling them would be empty and pointless. Nobody would deny this. We would have the form but no matter, to use another classic distinction. Latter part was my main concern in this text; sampling a fragrance without any concepts or information would actually impoverish the experience - matter without form. This is an idea many might dispute by thinking all the knowledge we have is only hindering our possibility of really smelling a fragrance for what it is. While this is true to certain extent, I wanted to look it from a different direction; as something that enrichens our experience and help us make distinctions and abstractions with more clarity.
We all agree, atleast to some extent, that knowing the product we are testing certainly has an effect on the way we perceive it. Price, brand, nose, reputation, packaging, name, concept, reviews and many other attributes combine for a set of presuppositions. It is usual and natural to think that this restricts us from perceiving the fragrance as it is in itself. This is obviously true. Yet it is not the whole story. Way more interesting question is, if all of this might have some advantages as well. I believe it does - in many ways.
Let's start from the name. I tend to think, that name is an integral part of an artwork. Naming a painting in certain way gives us a hint in what way we should approach it. Same goes for novels, music and sculptures. I see no reason why this shouldn't be the case in fragrances as well. Not naming an artwork can also be a statement - usually not a strong one, though. I am not at all a fan of some pieces of postmodern art, where we have a banal everyday object; by naming it and taking it to an art exhibition we make it a part of the artworld. It is usually boring and contentless. Witty at best. Once the statement is made, it's well and truly over. While one point here is, that it might make us see a commonplace object in new light, to see beauty in something we haven't looked as an object of potential aesthetic value before, the actual statement is that works of art can not be defined by any innate attributes. Thus we will have to rely on a conception of the artworld. This is not very interesting in our case, so I will not go further here.
What is important for us is the power pre-knowledge can hold in a positive, enrichening sense. To follow philosopher Arthur Danto's example; naming a painting which is nothing but a red square in different ways has a huge effect on how we perceive it. We can name it "The Israelites crossing the Red Sea", "Kierkegaard's Mood", "The Red Square" or we can choose to not name it at all. We would be hard-pressed to say they are the same work of art at all!
Just consider Tauer's L'Air du Desert Marocain; if we wouldn't know the name, the fragrance would certainly lose some of it's evocative nature! I don't think any of us would have described this fantatic scent as smelling like Moroccan desert air if we didn't know the name, which means it doesn't actually smell like it, it's just a fantastic abstraction. Messe de Minuit is another similar case.
While there are some other interesting cases, I think that in our case it makes sense to broaden this name issue to all pre-knowledge without making this idea too much damage. Knowing the list of notes can help us in making some distinctions, picking up notes and accords, understanding the evolution of a fragrance more clearly. Reviews is another tool I see as mostly positive. There are alot of great scents I would have not grown to like had it not been some fantastic reviews and reviewers. This point is more practical than philosophical, yet important all the same. There are way too many fragrances in the world for one person. Reviews, opinions, nose behind the scent, the list of notes and other information help us pick the scents we should sample in the first place. Reading that some scent might take several wearings to get into can be another important indicator. Without information like this we would be absolutely blind in the world of perfumes.
I could go on and on, but I'm sure you understand my main point; last time I wrote a text that combined philosophy, aesthetics and perfumes, I got overtly excited and wrote a very long text. Now I will have to restrict myself. To clarify the title I borrowed from Immanuel Kant; in this particulat case the first part of the paragraph would mean, that reading and studying perfumes without ever smelling them would be empty and pointless. Nobody would deny this. We would have the form but no matter, to use another classic distinction. Latter part was my main concern in this text; sampling a fragrance without any concepts or information would actually impoverish the experience - matter without form. This is an idea many might dispute by thinking all the knowledge we have is only hindering our possibility of really smelling a fragrance for what it is. While this is true to certain extent, I wanted to look it from a different direction; as something that enrichens our experience and help us make distinctions and abstractions with more clarity.
When I forgot about feminine and masculine fragrances, jewels like Mitsouko, Fleur du Male and Obsesion Night, revealed themselves as nice wearable fragrances. Knize ten apeared to me as a nice and lush Floral. When I forgot about price, I learned to put the house of YSL above many other niche brands.
. Seriously, I think you can make a case for names, color etc. providing a useful enriching context for a perfume but it can also be an obnoxious distraction engineered by marketing schmucks.
). I have also seen it propagated for men occasionally by Tauer. The name is almost too nondescript though. But what may really have hindered its success was the emphasis on one ingredient - rose! Tauer started it, all ads have it, and even Sanchez’ review has “rose-jasmine” right at the beginning. Nobody please think of Patous wonderful Rose-jasmines. Le Maroc couldn't be further away! It is really about something else, and therefore probably much more Moroccan than L’Air even
