New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Chandler Burr Untitled S01E05

post #1 of 128
10/1/12 at 7:30pm
Thread Starter 
OK, people - who's back in the game? This one sounds pretty darn good. I already have ideas who he's talking about. In any case, let's get started on the fifth of Chandler Burr's Untitled series: S01E05

Here's the new URL on OpenSky: https://opensky.com/chandlerburr/pro...-series-s01e05

Chandler's description:

Quote:
The fascinating thing about S01E05 is that Mies van der Rohes famous dicturm of modernism, less is more, applies to it perfectly, yet so do the philosophical musings of pop singer Heidi Montag: more is more.

S01E05s artist is in my view one of the most exciting and talented around today. He is a quintessential contemporary perfumer, and I find his work, which is uniformly good-to-great, a guide to the future, seemingly effortless forward movement. We are, here, in the hands of neither a modernist (you dont perceive the slightest interest in re-understanding the past from a different angle) nor a post-modernist (no tearing down, no violence, no temper tantrums). If he has absorbed the mediums canon, here is a creator who never once looks over his shoulder.

This is one of a number of works he has created for a spectacularly serious and well-directed housea house intelligent enough to be awarding him numerous commissionsand one of the best in their collection. That is saying something because their collection is one of, Id say, six or seven best in the world.

E05 is a work in the literalist style, contemporary figuratism, almost photo realism. The name contains the object that the artist is ostensibly photographing, but like all photo realism this is aesthetic trick. The work is so much more. Its creator obviously knows the plush, gold-leaf-and scarlet-velvet romanticism of Aimé Guerlains Jicky (1889) and the 1999 version of Jicky, the brilliant synthetic-curtain post-Romanticist sensuality of Michel Almairacs Rush. E05 is an ingenious 21st century romanticism that uses the olfactory photo to paint shadows within light, sensual and pungent nature, a realist dark green from an enchanted garden with rich soil and sinuous vinesa garden you retreat to with pleasureand a beauty that looks you in the eye and smiles.

The artist has made the technical choice of designing the work for evolution on skin. Wikipedia tells me, of Montags oeuvre, Lyrically, the song is about going to the club with friends, drinking and receiving male attention. In the second half, the lyrics switchto more sexual. Sums it up.

The turn-of-the-century Guerlains made statements. In the French style, they said something, specific and purposeful. They didnt disappear like a cloak of nanoparticles on your skin. E05 makes a statement, but it does it without the French ego, vanity, or pomp. It is relaxed, it is intelligent. I suspect that if Guerlain were living now hed either be creating this work or sincerely envying its artist.

Good stuff. I'm all in!
Reply
Reply

Features on Basenotes

Greatest Hits: Annick Menardo
Basenotes Reader Awards 2013 - Finalists Announced.
Petals Falling From The Sky - A Report From The Cote d'Azur's Bataille De Fleurs
post #2 of 128
10/2/12 at 6:02pm
Obviously I'm in.

- - - Updated - - -

Obviously I'm in.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 128
10/2/12 at 6:38pm
In.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 128
10/3/12 at 12:19am
As he so succinctly put it, "Soon".
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 128
10/5/12 at 1:32am
I just received an email saying mine shipped. That was quick!
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 128
10/5/12 at 4:12am
^^^ Same here.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 128
10/5/12 at 6:33am
With all respect to Red, whose thread this is, I thought I'd post some questions that I'd like to see us all try to answer as we start experiencing this fragrance. Blame it on the fact that I'm in two book clubs and therefore have gotten in the habit of bringing questions for each book

1. How does S01E05 make you feel? What mood does it create? When would you see yourself wearing it? Do you think others like it on you?
2. In what way would you describe this fragrance as “less”? Is it minimalist?
3. In what way is the fragrance “more”? Is it plush, rich, saturated? Is it sexy or sensual, and why? Is it romantic (in the 18th century sense), and why?
4. Burr says the fragrance is literal, almost photo realism. Do you experience that characteristic, and if so, what do you think it is about the fragrance that causes this impression?

Thanks!
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 128
10/5/12 at 5:34pm
Mine is also on its way according to my e-mail and I will attempt to answer these questions once I have a chance to wear it.

The one thing in the intro which has me intrigued is that Chandler has mentioned he thinks this perfume house's collection is one of the top six or seven in the world.

If we sort of take as a given that Guerlain and Chanel are probably one and two on his list which might be overextrapolation on my part anyone want to hazard any guesses on which house this could be before we have anything to sniff?

I would think Frederic Malle would qualify but the price makes me think that isn't it.
Maybe Annick Goutal and Isabelle Doyen? Or Cartier and Mathilde Laurent? i can see fragrances from both of those fitting his description.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 128
10/5/12 at 9:07pm
The text from CB uses the pronoun "he" to describe the composer. I think that eliminates Matilde Laurent and Isabelle Doyen.

Way back when I got an art history degree. I feel uncomfortable using art history language to describe fragrance, but I want to be open minded and give it a try. With respect to the owner of the thread, here's my best shot.

E05 is a romantic scent in the tradition of literal, figurative artists like Ingres. These artists use technique to try to solve some of the challenges painters have - like displaying a 3D figure on a 2D canvas. E05 was not created by a modernist, who like Manet, would flatten out the image and use technique to exaggerate the fact that paintings are 2D. In addition, E05 is not abstract, meaning that it is objective, again like Inges, but also like Manet. Pollock is a non-objective, abstract artist. So E05 uses scent to depcit an object in the 3D manner of the romantics. This literal figuratism is taken far enough so that is can be described as photo-realism. In photorealism, the painter paints a photo, and by doing so adds some of his or her internal reactions to it.

There is some garden imagery in the description. Let's assume this is a rose scent, just for this example. The rose is literal, so much so that it is an olfactory photograph of a rose, but with some touches that come from the composers own internal ideas of a rose.

This is my best first shot at using my art history to describe fragrance. Do others agree? Disagree?

Note - I read a website to refresh myself, and that site mentioned Manet. Don't remember the URL.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 128
10/5/12 at 10:30pm
Thread Starter 
Great posts, and - honestly - just because I started it, please don't feel like I own it. The way I see it, I just rented the space - y'all bring the party!
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 128
10/6/12 at 6:49am
Perfume_Addict, good idea and good questions. Thanks for this.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 128
10/6/12 at 7:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babsvs View Post

The text from CB uses the pronoun "he" to describe the composer. I think that eliminates Matilde Laurent and Isabelle Doyen.

Way back when I got an art history degree. I feel uncomfortable using art history language to describe fragrance, but I want to be open minded and give it a try. With respect to the owner of the thread, here's my best shot.

E05 is a romantic scent in the tradition of literal, figurative artists like Ingres. These artists use technique to try to solve some of the challenges painters have - like displaying a 3D figure on a 2D canvas. E05 was not created by a modernist, who like Manet, would flatten out the image and use technique to exaggerate the fact that paintings are 2D. In addition, E05 is not abstract, meaning that it is objective, again like Inges, but also like Manet. Pollock is a non-objective, abstract artist. So E05 uses scent to depcit an object in the 3D manner of the romantics. This literal figuratism is taken far enough so that is can be described as photo-realism. In photorealism, the painter paints a photo, and by doing so adds some of his or her internal reactions to it.

There is some garden imagery in the description. Let's assume this is a rose scent, just for this example. The rose is literal, so much so that it is an olfactory photograph of a rose, but with some touches that come from the composers own internal ideas of a rose.

This is my best first shot at using my art history to describe fragrance. Do others agree? Disagree?

Note - I read a website to refresh myself, and that site mentioned Manet. Don't remember the URL.

Awesome description! I can't wait to try the fragrance. In the meantime, this is what I'm picturing based on the descriptions:



Don't you love the glimpse of seashells in the drawer?
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 128
10/6/12 at 11:02am
I'll be following along, that's for sure.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:
Originally Posted by Perfume_Addict View Post

With all respect to Red, whose thread this is, I thought I'd post some questions that I'd like to see us all try to answer as we start experiencing this fragrance. Blame it on the fact that I'm in two book clubs and therefore have gotten in the habit of bringing questions for each book

1. How does S01E05 make you feel? What mood does it create? When would you see yourself wearing it? Do you think others like it on you?
2. In what way would you describe this fragrance as “less”? Is it minimalist?
3. In what way is the fragrance “more”? Is it plush, rich, saturated? Is it sexy or sensual, and why? Is it romantic (in the 18th century sense), and why?
4. Burr says the fragrance is literal, almost photo realism. Do you experience that characteristic, and if so, what do you think it is about the fragrance that causes this impression?

Thanks!

You bring up such an interesting topic. How do we (or perhaps how SHOULD we) perceive and describe perfume? I've been fascinated by my own reactions to the Untitled series versus how I react to scents I pick for sampling. I've touched on this before, but it's worth repeating because I think it's helpful to put more thought into how we judge what we smell in a perfume.

When I pick a scent to sample, such as Molecule 01 (of which I'm expecting a sample to arrive any day now), I judge it as a piece of clothing. It's as if I'm standing in a dressing room with a pair of jeans or a shirt. I've seen the price tag. Now I judge the fit. Would I wear this?

For some reason, when I smell these Untitled scents, I don't judge them as items of clothing. Hell, initially, I don't even know what piece of clothing it is.

Maybe a restaurant analogy would fit better. Sampling a scent I've picked is like sitting at a table and receiving a plate with my dinner. I pick up a fork and knife to cut myself a piece, and I eat. But sampling an Untitled scent is like being in the kitchen and having the chef hand me a fork with something on it. I'm not sampling for the sake of eating. I may not even know what I'm trying. OH! YES! It reminds me of a time when I was a regular for Sunday brunch at a new restaurant years ago. One day, the chef came out to our table and dropped off some bread and a small bowl. He said "Hey, I've seen you in here a lot. Here's a little something to try. I'll tell you what it is after you've had a chance to taste it. It's just a little something neat that probably won't ever make it on the menu." It was bizarre. At first, I hated it because it didn't make sense. But it was strangely addictive and actually quite delicious. When he returned and told me what it was, I realized why he didn't want me to know before trying. If he'd said "It's orange marmalade and horseradish" I would have assumed it was going to be pretty gross. And yeah, my first taste really threw me for a loop, but wow was it tasty! And it was fun to taste without expectations.

Many people get caught up in hype and they judge a scent based on its hype. They judge expectations. Aventus is a perfect example. So many smell it NOT to decide if they like it, but rather to decide if it lives up to their expectations based on the hype. I don't care about hype. I just smelled it to see if I liked it and if it wore well on me.

I really thought this Untitled Series was Mr. Burr's attempt to teach people to ignore hype and just smell for the sake of smelling. But I was wrong. I was wrong about the hype part, anyway. I'm not entirely sure he's trying to teach us anything. I think he's just presenting scents with as few expectations as possible. I suspect this is as much a learning process for him as it is for us.

...getting back to the questions in the list above...

Question #4 is particularly tricky. I can guarantee the answer for me would be no, not because I'd disagree with Mr. Burr. It's just that I don't experience scent as a physical object, like a painting for this example. I don't experience taste that way either. I experience scent as an experience, redundant as that may sound. Scent takes me to a time and place and memory. To my nose, literal would mean natural - a smell I know from the real world. And abstract would mean a scent that can only be created in a lab. I don't see a picture. I feel myself in a place.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 128
10/6/12 at 1:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by L'Homme Blanc Individuel View Post

You bring up such an interesting topic. How do we (or perhaps how SHOULD we) perceive and describe perfume? I've been fascinated by my own reactions to the Untitled series versus how I react to scents I pick for sampling. I've touched on this before, but it's worth repeating because I think it's helpful to put more thought into how we judge what we smell in a perfume.

When I pick a scent to sample, such as Molecule 01 (of which I'm expecting a sample to arrive any day now), I judge it as a piece of clothing. It's as if I'm standing in a dressing room with a pair of jeans or a shirt. I've seen the price tag. Now I judge the fit. Would I wear this?

For some reason, when I smell these Untitled scents, I don't judge them as items of clothing. Hell, initially, I don't even know what piece of clothing it is.

Maybe a restaurant analogy would fit better. Sampling a scent I've picked is like sitting at a table and receiving a plate with my dinner. I pick up a fork and knife to cut myself a piece, and I eat. But sampling an Untitled scent is like being in the kitchen and having the chef hand me a fork with something on it. I'm not sampling for the sake of eating. I may not even know what I'm trying. OH! YES! It reminds me of a time when I was a regular for Sunday brunch at a new restaurant years ago. One day, the chef came out to our table and dropped off some bread and a small bowl. He said "Hey, I've seen you in here a lot. Here's a little something to try. I'll tell you what it is after you've had a chance to taste it. It's just a little something neat that probably won't ever make it on the menu." It was bizarre. At first, I hated it because it didn't make sense. But it was strangely addictive and actually quite delicious. When he returned and told me what it was, I realized why he didn't want me to know before trying. If he'd said "It's orange marmalade and horseradish" I would have assumed it was going to be pretty gross. And yeah, my first taste really threw me for a loop, but wow was it tasty! And it was fun to taste without expectations.

Many people get caught up in hype and they judge a scent based on its hype. They judge expectations. Aventus is a perfect example. So many smell it NOT to decide if they like it, but rather to decide if it lives up to their expectations based on the hype. I don't care about hype. I just smelled it to see if I liked it and if it wore well on me.

I really thought this Untitled Series was Mr. Burr's attempt to teach people to ignore hype and just smell for the sake of smelling. But I was wrong. I was wrong about the hype part, anyway. I'm not entirely sure he's trying to teach us anything. I think he's just presenting scents with as few expectations as possible. I suspect this is as much a learning process for him as it is for us.

...getting back to the questions in the list above...

Question #4 is particularly tricky. I can guarantee the answer for me would be no, not because I'd disagree with Mr. Burr. It's just that I don't experience scent as a physical object, like a painting for this example. I don't experience taste that way either. I experience scent as an experience, redundant as that may sound. Scent takes me to a time and place and memory. To my nose, literal would mean natural - a smell I know from the real world. And abstract would mean a scent that can only be created in a lab. I don't see a picture. I feel myself in a place.

Really really loving this piece LHBI It resonates perfectly with how I feel about fragrance and its link with memory, actually 1 of the few things that have been scientifically investigated and there is progress in that area: scent and memory are indeed neurologically and neuro-psychologically linked!

It also explains perfectly why I have no idea how to place scent into any art history context, unless I have strong memories linked with particular art pieces or art movements. For me, not something that occurs often.

So thank you, for sharing your view!!!

Great questions btw @Perfume_addict!
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 128
10/6/12 at 2:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by L'Homme Blanc Individuel View Post

Question #4 is particularly tricky. I can guarantee the answer for me would be no, not because I'd disagree with Mr. Burr. It's just that I don't experience scent as a physical object, like a painting for this example. I don't experience taste that way either. I experience scent as an experience, redundant as that may sound. Scent takes me to a time and place and memory. To my nose, literal would mean natural - a smell I know from the real world. And abstract would mean a scent that can only be created in a lab. I don't see a picture. I feel myself in a place.

I completely agree with the comments (your and Irina's) about scent and memory. Its what made me a perfume_addict: I became enthralled with fragrance when I had a sort of flashback experience. I sniffed a fragrance I hadn't worn or smelled since college, and was transported back the the moment I last remembered wearing it, complete with a memory of the Diane von Furstenburg-style dress I'd worn and my shoes and hair style. Ah, if only it really could take me back!

But not every moment of our life is highly-charged with emotion, and therefore not every scent/smell becomes entwined with an emotionally powerful memory. It seems like there should be smell-references (memories?) that are more analytic, or purely functional, like vocabulary. And in the case of some of those, they might be associated with images or sounds which are themselves associated with defined art movements (e.g. Romanticism.)

But if that's not how you experience scent, that's okay. It can certainly be interesting to learn how other people do. And don't assume that the way you perceive scent will always remain the same. I've been exploring fragrance for over a decade, and there have been many evolutions in how I perceive scent. Ultimately you smell with your brain, and therefore you "learn" as you experience scent.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 128
10/6/12 at 4:22pm
I'm in! I played with S01E02, but skipped the others. I look forward to answering Perfume_Addict's questions, which seem a good way to start talking about it, based on Mr. Burr's description.

It's very interesting, this question of "how" we perceive scent, and what makes us want to own/wear something. When sniffing something new, I don't usually have an emotional reaction, unless it reminds me very powerfully of something I already own. Rather, I find myself, much like I do with music, trying to understand how it is put together and how it relates to my specific aesthetics. Is is beautifully/arrestingly/humorously composed? Can I see myself wearing it (i.e., can it exist both on its own merits and also become part of my day-to-day identity, or is it too unlike me), and does it hold my attention into the dry down? Dry downs are everything to me.

Emotion only comes into play as I begin to wear it and accumulate experiences while wearing it. If I leave a scent for a while and then put it on, I'm reminded immediately of what I was doing and who I was with the last time I wore it. If it's a scent I continue to wear, those memories are always being overridden by new ones.

Which is why it becomes almost impossible for me to wear something that I haven't worn in many years, maybe even a couple decades. The memories associated are too strong, or too beloved, and I don't want to supplant them. The perfume serves instead as a kind of snapshot for me and must be preserved as such.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 128
10/6/12 at 6:45pm
PerfumeAddict - The piece you posted is exactly the sort of painting that I see 05 as! It is literal, there are definable objects in the paiting, and the painter is using his technique to make the objects look more realistic. The only small tweak I might make is to choose a photo realists depiction of the still life, but I think that is a small matter of taste only.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:
Originally Posted by Perfume_Addict View Post

With all respect to Red, whose thread this is, I thought I'd post some questions that I'd like to see us all try to answer as we start experiencing this fragrance. Blame it on the fact that I'm in two book clubs and therefore have gotten in the habit of bringing questions for each book

1. How does S01E05 make you feel? What mood does it create? When would you see yourself wearing it? Do you think others like it on you?
2. In what way would you describe this fragrance as “less”? Is it minimalist?
3. In what way is the fragrance “more”? Is it plush, rich, saturated? Is it sexy or sensual, and why? Is it romantic (in the 18th century sense), and why?
4. Burr says the fragrance is literal, almost photo realism. Do you experience that characteristic, and if so, what do you think it is about the fragrance that causes this impression?

Thanks!

I am eager to answer your questions on the 9th or 10th when my E05 arrives. I paticularly love questions 2,3,4.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:
Originally Posted by Somerville Metro Man View Post

Mine is also on its way according to my e-mail and I will attempt to answer these questions once I have a chance to wear it.

The one thing in the intro which has me intrigued is that Chandler has mentioned he thinks this perfume house's collection is one of the top six or seven in the world.

If we sort of take as a given that Guerlain and Chanel are probably one and two on his list which might be overextrapolation on my part anyone want to hazard any guesses on which house this could be before we have anything to sniff?

I would think Frederic Malle would qualify but the price makes me think that isn't it.
Maybe Annick Goutal and Isabelle Doyen? Or Cartier and Mathilde Laurent? i can see fragrances from both of those fitting his description.

I like your question. I am thinking Bertrand Duchaufour for L'Artisan Parfumeur. I like his olfactory photos of Timbuktu, Bhutan (Dzongkha), Havana (Vanille Asolument) and Istanbul (Traversee du Bosphore). I think that these fragrances describe literal subjects, in this case cities. Also, LAP has awarded him with multiple commissions, and LAP is a by most accounts a well run house.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 128
10/6/12 at 8:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babsvs View Post

PerfumeAddict - The piece you posted is exactly the sort of painting that I see 05 as! It is literal, there are definable objects in the painting, and the painter is using his technique to make the objects look more realistic. The only small tweak I might make is to choose a photo realists depiction of the still life, but I think that is a small matter of taste only.

I like your question. I am thinking Bertrand Duchaufour for L'Artisan Parfumeur. I like his olfactory photos of Timbuktu, Bhutan (Dzongkha), Havana (Vanille Asolument) and Istanbul (Traversee du Bosphore). I think that these fragrances describe literal subjects, in this case cities. Also, LAP has awarded him with multiple commissions, and LAP is a by most accounts a well run house.

I couldn't find a still life that was Romantic and used photo realism, so I settled for Romantic.

Now that you mention it, L'Artisan Parfumeur is one of the perfume houses I appreciate most, and the only one that often rates the wearing of multiple scents in the course of a week. (This week included L'eau d'Ambre, Premier Figuier and Dzing.) I wouldn't be disappointed if one of the Untitled Series scents was from L'Artisan.
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 128
10/7/12 at 1:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perfume_Addict View Post

I couldn't find a still life that was Romantic and used photo realism, so I settled for Romantic.

Now that you mention it, L'Artisan Parfumeur is one of the perfume houses I appreciate most, and the only one that often rates the wearing of multiple scents in the course of a week. (This week included L'eau d'Ambre, Premier Figuier and Dzing.) I wouldn't be disappointed if one of the Untitled Series scents was from L'Artisan.

I wouldn't begin to know where to find a photo realistic, romantic painting. The painting in my reply is in my mind only, and I hope I did not offend you. I thought the piece you picked was great, and yes, I do love the shells.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:
Originally Posted by PerfumePorMoi View Post

I'm in! I played with S01E02, but skipped the others. I look forward to answering Perfume_Addict's questions, which seem a good way to start talking about it, based on Mr. Burr's description.

It's very interesting, this question of "how" we perceive scent, and what makes us want to own/wear something. When sniffing something new, I don't usually have an emotional reaction, unless it reminds me very powerfully of something I already own. Rather, I find myself, much like I do with music, trying to understand how it is put together and how it relates to my specific aesthetics. Is is beautifully/arrestingly/humorously composed? Can I see myself wearing it (i.e., can it exist both on its own merits and also become part of my day-to-day identity, or is it too unlike me), and does it hold my attention into the dry down? Dry downs are everything to me.

Emotion only comes into play as I begin to wear it and accumulate experiences while wearing it. If I leave a scent for a while and then put it on, I'm reminded immediately of what I was doing and who I was with the last time I wore it. If it's a scent I continue to wear, those memories are always being overridden by new ones.

Which is why it becomes almost impossible for me to wear something that I haven't worn in many years, maybe even a couple decades. The memories associated are too strong, or too beloved, and I don't want to supplant them. The perfume serves instead as a kind of snapshot for me and must be preserved as such.

Your discussion is so interesting. I respond to art, perfume, and music all in the same way. I remember being in 5th grade and' the art teacher got some slides and did an art history lecture. Two of the pieces he showed were Bonnard's The Breakfast Room and Turner's Norham Castle at Dawn. The best way to describe it is that I felt like something in me melted from being in the presence of the pieces and I felt instantly close to the painters. I have reproductions of these pieces framed and hanging in my home. I don't have anything by Raphael or Picasso. They are masters, but they don't make me "melt". I have a more intellectual appreciation of their work.

I choose fragrances in exactly the same way. At about the same age as Turner and Bonnard, I smelled Houbiagant's Chantilly and was just knocked away by it. Over time, I've had the same "melting" response to LHB, Jicky, Colony, Eau de Guerlain, Maharanih, Vanilia, Timbuktu, Jeux de Peau, Fille en Aiguille, La Petite Robe Noir (2009), and recently Talisman and Rumba. I'll wear a fragrance that I don't have that response to, but I probably won't buy a FB. If it's reformulated or d/c, I could live with that.

So for me, I have the same non-verbal delight in both art and fragrance that just knock me over.
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 128
10/7/12 at 2:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perfume_Addict View Post

I completely agree with the comments (your and Irina's) about scent and memory. Its what made me a perfume_addict: I became enthralled with fragrance when I had a sort of flashback experience. I sniffed a fragrance I hadn't worn or smelled since college, and was transported back the the moment I last remembered wearing it, complete with a memory of the Diane von Furstenburg-style dress I'd worn and my shoes and hair style. Ah, if only it really could take me back!

But not every moment of our life is highly-charged with emotion, and therefore not every scent/smell becomes entwined with an emotionally powerful memory. It seems like there should be smell-references (memories?) that are more analytic, or purely functional, like vocabulary. And in the case of some of those, they might be associated with images or sounds which are themselves associated with defined art movements (e.g. Romanticism.)

But if that's not how you experience scent, that's okay. It can certainly be interesting to learn how other people do. And don't assume that the way you perceive scent will always remain the same. I've been exploring fragrance for over a decade, and there have been many evolutions in how I perceive scent. Ultimately you smell with your brain, and therefore you "learn" as you experience scent.

So very true indeed. With 'memory' I don't necessarily mean a highly emotional experience but simply human experience. Like I will forever associate E03 L'Etrog with this project and our discussions here, the way the movie 'Inception' and the book 'Fifty Shades of Grey' made me feel and the yoga class where I first wore it. Some other scents I associate with specific materials and how they came into my life through olfactory training, indeed like smell-references. There are certain pieces of art that I associate with a particular smell, simply because I was wearing/smelling that fragrance when experiencing them for the first time.

The abstract functional fragrance, for example when I design a fragrance for an air refresher is the most cerebral of all, but even then I have a memory in my mind that I associate with 'fresh', 'clean', 'seasonal' or whatever the brief is. I also often imagine how my fragrance would make people feel.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:
Originally Posted by PerfumePorMoi View Post

It's very interesting, this question of "how" we perceive scent, and what makes us want to own/wear something. When sniffing something new, I don't usually have an emotional reaction, unless it reminds me very powerfully of something I already own. Rather, I find myself, much like I do with music, trying to understand how it is put together and how it relates to my specific aesthetics. Is is beautifully/arrestingly/humorously composed? Can I see myself wearing it (i.e., can it exist both on its own merits and also become part of my day-to-day identity, or is it too unlike me), and does it hold my attention into the dry down? Dry downs are everything to me.

Emotion only comes into play as I begin to wear it and accumulate experiences while wearing it. If I leave a scent for a while and then put it on, I'm reminded immediately of what I was doing and who I was with the last time I wore it. If it's a scent I continue to wear, those memories are always being overridden by new ones.

Which is why it becomes almost impossible for me to wear something that I haven't worn in many years, maybe even a couple decades. The memories associated are too strong, or too beloved, and I don't want to supplant them. The perfume serves instead as a kind of snapshot for me and must be preserved as such.

Wonderfully worded, thank you for sharing! I recognize so much in what you tell. Besides that I'm all about top notes, materials and construction are very very important to me (duh cos of my profession )
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 128
10/7/12 at 1:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irina View Post

So very true indeed. With 'memory' I don't necessarily mean a highly emotional experience but simply human experience. Like I will forever associate E03 L'Etrog with this project and our discussions here, the way the movie 'Inception' and the book 'Fifty Shades of Grey' made me feel and the yoga class where I first wore it. Some other scents I associate with specific materials and how they came into my life through olfactory training, indeed like smell-references. There are certain pieces of art that I associate with a particular smell, simply because I was wearing/smelling that fragrance when experiencing them for the first time.

The abstract functional fragrance, for example when I design a fragrance for an air refresher is the most cerebral of all, but even then I have a memory in my mind that I associate with 'fresh', 'clean', 'seasonal' or whatever the brief is. I also often imagine how my fragrance would make people feel.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, that seems to be it exactly for me as well.

Although, now that I've thought about it more in depth, I have had a couple highly charged emotional responses to perfumes--ones that I'd never smelled before. Tauer's Lonestar Memories and Guerlain's Après L'ondée. Lonestar because it smells so much like where I live and Après because it is so, so melancholy and full of longing. But I can't think of any other perfume, even the most beautiful and treasured in my collection, that evoked a response in quite that way.

For the most part, my "emotional" responses to works of art, including perfumes, are more in the vein of what you describe. More than anything, I am trying to relate them to myself and my view of the world. Does it fit my sense of self and, for lack of a better word, my sense of life?
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 128
10/7/12 at 1:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by PerfumePorMoi View Post

Yes, that seems to be it exactly for me as well.

Although, now that I've thought about it more in depth, I have had a couple highly charged emotional responses to perfumes--ones that I'd never smelled before. Tauer's Lonestar Memories and Guerlain's Après L'ondée. Lonestar because it smells so much like where I live and Après because it is so, so melancholy and full of longing. But I can't think of any other perfume, even the most beautiful and treasured in my collection, that evoked a response in quite that way.

For the most part, my "emotional" responses to works of art, including perfumes, are more in the vein of what you describe. More than anything, I am trying to relate them to myself and my view of the world. Does it fit my sense of self and, for lack of a better word, my sense of life?

Can totally relate. I think I wrote about this somewhere calling fragrance art as provoking a 'visceral' reaction, like you either 'love' a fragrance or 'hate' it. Non-artful fragrances can be 'nice', 'lovely' or any more medium or mediocre adjectives. Visceral art hits me deep (like in my gut, the quintessential of me). It certainly is a very subjective point of view and that makes it hard for me to actually categorize fragrance within the frames of art history.

But maybe that's how art works? That one can learn to appreciate artfulness in a cerebral way minus the visceral reaction?
Art connoisseurs please help?
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 128
10/8/12 at 3:22pm
My most emotional reaction to any piece of art I ever had was to Marc Chagall's America Windows at the Chicago museum of Art.
It was the first time I felt tears roll down my cheek at the impact of art, it would not be the last.
At first it was the subject matter but it was the subject matter and the manner of it which reached inside and gripped me to show emotion. But after the emotion faded I began to analyze what was special about it. The use of stained glass as a medium. The choice of a deep color of blue as the spatial filler to enhance the non-blue pieces resonated to my sight with a particular beauty.
The last few sentences are me speaking about the "notes" of this particular piece of art but it is the context of the emotion it evokes in me and in my mind the relating of my response requires both aspects.
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 128
10/8/12 at 6:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irina View Post

Can totally relate. I think I wrote about this somewhere calling fragrance art as provoking a 'visceral' reaction, like you either 'love' a fragrance or 'hate' it. Non-artful fragrances can be 'nice', 'lovely' or any more medium or mediocre adjectives. Visceral art hits me deep (like in my gut, the quintessential of me). It certainly is a very subjective point of view and that makes it hard for me to actually categorize fragrance within the frames of art history.

But maybe that's how art works? That one can learn to appreciate artfulness in a cerebral way minus the visceral reaction?
Art connoisseurs please help?

What an interesting point that you raise. I think as either the nose or eyes are exposed to more fragrance or visual art, they learn and become more able to take in and appreciate more. As an example, Northern Renaissance art has never made me gasp at it's beauty. I love learning about the detail of painters like Van Eyck, but I don't feel a need to have a van Eyck reproduction in my home. On the other hand, a fishhook made by an anonymous Eskimo fisherman just did me in. It looks like a sculpture to me. With fragrance (or art or food or music) I think that our ability to appreciate and like more and more evolves as we smell more. One of the fragrances that really strikes me and helped open my mind is CdG Stephen Jones. I am intrigued by this "modern art" scent. I always have a decant around. It's not FBW for me though, as it doesn't send me over the moon. I consider this to be completely subjective. Duchafour's Timbuktu sends me to the moon and back. I wore it all summer. Some days, I have to consciously reach for something else so that I am not wearing it every day. Five days ago I tried Jubilation XXV for the first time. It is the first scent since Timbuktu that a scent just knocked me over. I wish I knew why some art from every discipline moves me, and other art may interest me intensely, but I do not have the same deep reaction to it.

I once took some Jungian training. Their theory (I may not have this completely right) is that we all have unconscious parts within in our psyche that are party from our personal history, and partly from the history of our families going back over the generations. These parts (complexes) cause us to be infatuated with a person or a piece of art.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:
Originally Posted by Somerville Metro Man View Post

My most emotional reaction to any piece of art I ever had was to Marc Chagall's America Windows at the Chicago museum of Art.
It was the first time I felt tears roll down my cheek at the impact of art, it would not be the last.
At first it was the subject matter but it was the subject matter and the manner of it which reached inside and gripped me to show emotion. But after the emotion faded I began to analyze what was special about it. The use of stained glass as a medium. The choice of a deep color of blue as the spatial filler to enhance the non-blue pieces resonated to my sight with a particular beauty.
The last few sentences are me speaking about the "notes" of this particular piece of art but it is the context of the emotion it evokes in me and in my mind the relating of my response requires both aspects.


Oh wow yes. It is this way for me too. The deep emotion comes first, and then I want to learn the details.
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 128
10/8/12 at 11:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somerville Metro Man View Post

My most emotional reaction to any piece of art I ever had was to Marc Chagall's America Windows at the Chicago museum of Art.
It was the first time I felt tears roll down my cheek at the impact of art, it would not be the last.
At first it was the subject matter but it was the subject matter and the manner of it which reached inside and gripped me to show emotion. But after the emotion faded I began to analyze what was special about it. The use of stained glass as a medium. The choice of a deep color of blue as the spatial filler to enhance the non-blue pieces resonated to my sight with a particular beauty.
The last few sentences are me speaking about the "notes" of this particular piece of art but it is the context of the emotion it evokes in me and in my mind the relating of my response requires both aspects.

OMG Chagall is my all time favorite artist, it moves me sooo deep, just like you describe! I love how you link that to the artistic details, and the mind & soul connection, totally agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Babsvs View Post

What an interesting point that you raise. I think as either the nose or eyes are exposed to more fragrance or visual art, they learn and become more able to take in and appreciate more. As an example, Northern Renaissance art has never made me gasp at it's beauty. I love learning about the detail of painters like Van Eyck, but I don't feel a need to have a van Eyck reproduction in my home. On the other hand, a fishhook made by an anonymous Eskimo fisherman just did me in. It looks like a sculpture to me. With fragrance (or art or food or music) I think that our ability to appreciate and like more and more evolves as we smell more. One of the fragrances that really strikes me and helped open my mind is CdG Stephen Jones. I am intrigued by this "modern art" scent. I always have a decant around. It's not FBW for me though, as it doesn't send me over the moon. I consider this to be completely subjective. Duchafour's Timbuktu sends me to the moon and back. I wore it all summer. Some days, I have to consciously reach for something else so that I am not wearing it every day. Five days ago I tried Jubilation XXV for the first time. It is the first scent since Timbuktu that a scent just knocked me over. I wish I knew why some art from every discipline moves me, and other art may interest me intensely, but I do not have the same deep reaction to it.

I once took some Jungian training. Their theory (I may not have this completely right) is that we all have unconscious parts within in our psyche that are party from our personal history, and partly from the history of our families going back over the generations. These parts (complexes) cause us to be infatuated with a person or a piece of art.

Oh wow yes. It is this way for me too. The deep emotion comes first, and then I want to learn the details.

The last line, yes, absolutely! I must say though that a less desirable effect of spending intimate attention to the details that compose fragrance (cq ingredients or actually meeting the artist), for me, is that some fragrances lose their 'magic'. Sometimes is better to not know and just imagine and experience.

And I totally get your desire of changing fragrance, even when you dearly love that one so much. It's wonderful to come back home to a beloved after a short separation

Also big fan of Jung, to me he is the magical realist of psychology. Very much like Chagall. Absolutely non-relevant from a scientific point of view but so wonderful to dream about the possibilities. There is so much we still don't know nor understand. There's where art comes in, imho, it gives us hope and understanding that we are all connected on a subliminal level that simply cannot all be explained intellectually.

p.s. wouldn't be awesome to get a fragrance in this series that would fit 'magical realism'??? I would totally buy that!
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 128
10/9/12 at 3:19pm
I received my E05 today. I am not ready for any kind of real description of it. I can say that the opening is unique. For about 5 seconds there is some wood, and then there is a green, vegetable sort of note with some lemon and salt. I have to be honest, it smells like cucumber to me.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:
Originally Posted by Perfume_Addict View Post

With all respect to Red, whose thread this is, I thought I'd post some questions that I'd like to see us all try to answer as we start experiencing this fragrance. Blame it on the fact that I'm in two book clubs and therefore have gotten in the habit of bringing questions for each book

1. How does S01E05 make you feel? What mood does it create? When would you see yourself wearing it? Do you think others like it on you?
2. In what way would you describe this fragrance as “less”? Is it minimalist?
3. In what way is the fragrance “more”? Is it plush, rich, saturated? Is it sexy or sensual, and why? Is it romantic (in the 18th century sense), and why?
4. Burr says the fragrance is literal, almost photo realism. Do you experience that characteristic, and if so, what do you think it is about the fragrance that causes this impression?

Thanks!

I now feel ready to answer perfume addict's questions

1. I am sorry to say that S05 did not evoke any feeling in me, and I can't see myself wearing it. That might change, and I might change toward it, but I didn't get a strong feeling of any sort. It certainly seems well contructed with a green/citrus opening, a floral green heart and a very long lasting wood drydown.

2. It is minimalist in that I did not smell a bouquet of notes. I got citrus, something green (cucumber?) and salt up top. The cucumber proceeded into the heart, and became a green floral. The drydown seemed like one wood note for quite a long time. I did get more is more only in the duration of the wood drydown. The scent is not at all sensual in my opinion. I did not get the reference to the song Mr. Burr referenced in E05.

3. E05 does not strike me as plush or rich. The wood and cucumber/citrus are saturated. As mentioned above, this is not my idea of sexy or sensual, but surely that is subjective. It is not at all romantic in the 18th century sense of the word. Romantics like Goethe (Young Werther), Byron, Keats, Whitman or Delacroix were concerned with the beauty of nature, the sensitivity of the artist, and spirituality. To quote Whitman from Song of Myself

Houses and rooms are full of perfumes, the shelves are
crowded with perfumes,
I breathe the fragrance myself and know it and like it,
The distillation would intoxicate me also, but I shall not let it.

The atmosphere is not a perfume, it has no taste of the
distillation, it is odorless,
It is for my mouth forever, I am in love with it,
I will go to the bank by the wood and become undisguised
and naked,
I am mad for it to be in contact with me.


When I think of a scent that is in the romantic tradition, using pretty much anything by the painter Delacroix as a reference, I think of Jubilation XXV or Portrait of a Lady.

4. I did get a very strong literal image of a cucumber. I think that it is very possible that I have this note completely wrong. I did spend a fair amount of time with the top, but I need to try it again. I think that I may have had a literal image in my mind from the text. I saw an overgrown garden with rich dark earth and vines that were climbing up the side of a house or even the trees. I didn't get that at all from E05. Again, I need to go back and see if this is a different garden than I was imagining from the scent. I was imagining something like Une Rose or even Apres l'Ondee. My ideal enchanted gardens are the one from The Secret Garden or from a Midsummer Night's Dream. There is nothing in the description that indicates flower garden, so maybe this is more of a vegetable garden? Again, I need to re-visit the beginning.

I also did not get any interplay of shadows and light. I really tried to find this. IMO once a note establishes itself, it holds center stage, and there were no other notes creeping in from the shadows. Again, I need to smell this again.
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 128
10/10/12 at 12:09am
Thank you for sharing @Babsvs, sounds like you're disappointed?
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 128
10/10/12 at 5:05pm
Yes. I am disappointed in the description of the fragrance and not in the fragrance iteself. I was very taken in with the description, and I do no think it reflects the scent. I do want to remain open minded. I'd like to try the fragrance again to see where I might be mistaken. At this point it seems like Jean Claude Ellena minimalism with a long lasting wood bottom to me.
What do others think?
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 128
10/10/12 at 7:16pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perfume_Addict View Post

1. How does S01E05 make you feel? What mood does it create? When would you see yourself wearing it? Do you think others like it on you?
2. In what way would you describe this fragrance as less? Is it minimalist?
3. In what way is the fragrance more? Is it plush, rich, saturated? Is it sexy or sensual, and why? Is it romantic (in the 18th century sense), and why?
4. Burr says the fragrance is literal, almost photo realism. Do you experience that characteristic, and if so, what do you think it is about the fragrance that causes this impression?

*sigh*

I thought I knew what this was when I smelled it, but my first guess only led me to the artist. The second guess, to the fragrance. My sample is a bit concentrated, but I don't think I've ever smelled anything quite like this one, so I'm rather confident in what it is. It *could* actually be what I first thought, which I only own in a body product, but I think of these two fragrances as very similar, so it's six of one, half a dozen of the other.

For a brief while, however, I wasn't completely sure what it was, and I saw it from a different perspective. The experience renewed my appreciation for the fragrance, and the artist.

I have avoided reading babsvs's impressions so that these will be as independent as possible.

1. How does S01E05 make you feel? What mood does it create? When would you see yourself wearing it? Do you think others like it on you?

Wistful. I'm a country boy at heart, and this one still gives me a very "outdoor" feeling. The smell of fields when I would walk through them on the way to the fishing hole. I want to wear this on a spring or fall day, when the bright sun is either starting to come out, or is making its final, warming, fall appearances.

I would have to say, I don't really care if others like it on me. I enjoy this one to be alone with it, like I'm in a museum. When I'm in the museum, my wife does nothing but bug me to keep moving. No. I want to enjoy this alone, and spend as much time with it as I want. It makes me reflective. I like that.

2. In what way would you describe this fragrance as less? Is it minimalist?

This fragrance is not what I would call a perfume. It's less than that. It's not big, or bold or what I was expecting (that Chandler would really "change it up" with E05). Is it minimalist? Yes, I think so. In fact, I was going to tar and feather our buddy Chandler with the neologism "chandlerspace", to describe the specific cross-section of fragrance-space that all of his five wispy, transparent, and minimalist true loves seem to inhabit. It's an interesting place, but numerically speaking, it's rather short on black holes and gothic knuckle-draggers.

3. In what way is the fragrance more? Is it plush, rich, saturated? Is it sexy or sensual, and why? Is it romantic (in the 18th century sense), and why?

While it's less than a perfume, it's more than an eau de cologne. It's very interesting. It's minimal and transparent, and has no more volume (in the "But my amp goes up to 11!" sense) than most of the others we've looked at in the Untitled series. But despite this, it's opaque in a milky, frosty, photo-through-linen way.

The words plush, rich, sexy and sensual don't really work for me here because of my rustic associations. HOWEVER, this fragrance could be worn in a sexy or sensual way with the right clothing. To me it wants light-colored, natural fabrics, like a summer dress or a cotton shirt, and to be worn on bare skin with them. It evokes a state of coolness or gentle warmth, and dryness, so it's not a clubbing scent - it's a "let's take a drive in the country" scent.

I'm not an art expert, though I feel like I "get" romanticism in paintings. I looked at a fair number of paintings labeled as Romantic, and this one is the one that spoke to me about my enjoyment of the scent:



The image that actually spoke to me about the scent itself is, strangely, a photo (in beginning to answer the next question)...

4. Burr says the fragrance is literal, almost photo realism. Do you experience that characteristic, and if so, what do you think it is about the fragrance that causes this impression?



I loved this enough to actually buy a print of it. Just like I have come very close to buying this fragrance before.

I think in many ways, yes. There is something natural and very real about it. If I could strip the idea of "The Good Earth" of all Asian connotations - even the novel - and just leave it as an idea of a sort of passive glorification of the idyllic, that applies anywhere - it has that feel to me. And yet there is some kind of gauzy, fuzzy texture over the whole thing which makes me think more of impressionism. Or perhaps it's that "less-than-photographic" quality of Romanticism, with central lighting by the spirit of Kinkade® (diluted with a fine mist of coming impressionism), that many Romantic paintings seem to have.

Ah, what can I say? I like this fragrance.
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 128
10/10/12 at 8:02pm
I wrote my answers offline before reading the other responses. I think I know (and considered buying) this scent. Ive lost my sample, so cant compare and will also note that my track record is not very good.
1. How does S01E05 make you feel? What mood does it create? When would you see yourself wearing it? Do you think others like it on you?
For me, S01E05 creates the feeling of floating in the middle of a great body of water. Serene, alone, but alert to the sun, waves, sounds. This feels like a warm-weather fragrance to me, although it didnt feel out of place in the office on an autumn day. Im not sure most people would recognize this as a perfume on me. I dont think it calls attention to itself, and to the extent people notice, I think they would perceive it more as just a nice smell than an intentional fragrance.
2. In what way would you describe this fragrance as less? Is it minimalist?
This is definitely minimalist. Its not the single molecule sparseness of Molecule 001, but it has very clean uncluttered lines. I can understand the Mies van der Rohe reference.
3. In what way is the fragrance more? Is it plush, rich, saturated? Is it sexy or sensual, and why? Is it romantic (in the 18th century sense), and why?
There is a sensual quality to floating in a lake or ocean, and as I mentioned above, I get that from S01E05. If there is a more its the vastness of the ocean being floated upon. Wearing this doesnt make me feel sexy, but it has occurred to me that Id find it kind of sexy if I smelled it on my significant other.
4. Burr says the fragrance is literal, almost photo realism. Do you experience that characteristic, and if so, what do you think it is about the fragrance that causes this impression?
I think the object referenced by S01E05 is sea (salt), and I do see it as a literal translation. I dont get salt in the sense of the saltiness of sweat; its a more mineral salt. I recognize vetiver and cedar contributing to the effect. The beginning of the scent, which does evolve on the skin, has citrus notes, but to me theyre not really part of what creates the sea-salt impression. There is also an undefined green note that some seem to be interpreting as cucumber. Well, maybe sea cucumber? Ironically, I think the sea shells in the Romantic-style painting I posted are peeking out of this scent, too!

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redneck Perfumisto View Post

*sigh*

I thought I knew what this was when I smelled it, but my first guess only led me to the artist. The second guess, to the fragrance. My sample is a bit concentrated, but I don't think I've ever smelled anything quite like this one, so I'm rather confident in what it is. It *could* actually be what I first thought, which I only own in a body product, but I think of these two fragrances as very similar, so it's six of one, half a dozen of the other.

For a brief while, however, I wasn't completely sure what it was, and I saw it from a different perspective. The experience renewed my appreciation for the fragrance, and the artist.

I have avoided reading babsvs's impressions so that these will be as independent as possible.

1. How does S01E05 make you feel? What mood does it create? When would you see yourself wearing it? Do you think others like it on you?

Wistful. I'm a country boy at heart, and this one still gives me a very "outdoor" feeling. The smell of fields when I would walk through them on the way to the fishing hole. I want to wear this on a spring or fall day, when the bright sun is either starting to come out, or is making its final, warming, fall appearances.

I would have to say, I don't really care if others like it on me. I enjoy this one to be alone with it, like I'm in a museum. When I'm in the museum, my wife does nothing but bug me to keep moving. No. I want to enjoy this alone, and spend as much time with it as I want. It makes me reflective. I like that.

2. In what way would you describe this fragrance as “less”? Is it minimalist?

This fragrance is not what I would call a perfume. It's less than that. It's not big, or bold or what I was expecting (that Chandler would really "change it up" with E05). Is it minimalist? Yes, I think so. In fact, I was going to tar and feather our buddy Chandler with the neologism "chandlerspace", to describe the specific cross-section of fragrance-space that all of his five wispy, transparent, and minimalist true loves seem to inhabit. It's an interesting place, but numerically speaking, it's rather short on black holes and gothic knuckle-draggers.

3. In what way is the fragrance “more”? Is it plush, rich, saturated? Is it sexy or sensual, and why? Is it romantic (in the 18th century sense), and why?

While it's less than a perfume, it's more than an eau de cologne. It's very interesting. It's minimal and transparent, and has no more volume (in the "But my amp goes up to 11!" sense) than most of the others we've looked at in the Untitled series. But despite this, it's opaque in a milky, frosty, photo-through-linen way.

The words plush, rich, sexy and sensual don't really work for me here because of my rustic associations. HOWEVER, this fragrance could be worn in a sexy or sensual way with the right clothing. To me it wants light-colored, natural fabrics, like a summer dress or a cotton shirt, and to be worn on bare skin with them. It evokes a state of coolness or gentle warmth, and dryness, so it's not a clubbing scent - it's a "let's take a drive in the country" scent.

I'm not an art expert, though I feel like I "get" romanticism in paintings. I looked at a fair number of paintings labeled as Romantic, and this one is the one that spoke to me about my enjoyment of the scent:



The image that actually spoke to me about the scent itself is, strangely, a photo (in beginning to answer the next question)...

4. Burr says the fragrance is literal, almost photo realism. Do you experience that characteristic, and if so, what do you think it is about the fragrance that causes this impression?



I loved this enough to actually buy a print of it. Just like I have come very close to buying this fragrance before.

I think in many ways, yes. There is something natural and very real about it. If I could strip the idea of "The Good Earth" of all Asian connotations - even the novel - and just leave it as an idea of a sort of passive glorification of the idyllic, that applies anywhere - it has that feel to me. And yet there is some kind of gauzy, fuzzy texture over the whole thing which makes me think more of impressionism. Or perhaps it's that "less-than-photographic" quality of Romanticism, with central lighting by the spirit of Kinkade® (diluted with a fine mist of coming impressionism), that many Romantic paintings seem to have.

Ah, what can I say? I like this fragrance.

I think its interesting that we both mentioned the idea of being alone when smelling this, and its not being a perfume. What does that mean, do you think?
Reply
Reply
post #31 of 128
10/10/12 at 8:50pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perfume_Addict View Post

I wrote my answers offline before reading the other responses. I think I know (and considered buying) this scent. Ive lost my sample, so cant compare and will also note that my track record is not very good.
1. How does S01E05 make you feel? What mood does it create? When would you see yourself wearing it? Do you think others like it on you?
For me, S01E05 creates the feeling of floating in the middle of a great body of water. Serene, alone, but alert to the sun, waves, sounds. This feels like a warm-weather fragrance to me, although it didnt feel out of place in the office on an autumn day. Im not sure most people would recognize this as a perfume on me. I dont think it calls attention to itself, and to the extent people notice, I think they would perceive it more as just a nice smell than an intentional fragrance.
2. In what way would you describe this fragrance as less? Is it minimalist?
This is definitely minimalist. Its not the single molecule sparseness of Molecule 001, but it has very clean uncluttered lines. I can understand the Mies van der Rohe reference.
3. In what way is the fragrance more? Is it plush, rich, saturated? Is it sexy or sensual, and why? Is it romantic (in the 18th century sense), and why?
There is a sensual quality to floating in a lake or ocean, and as I mentioned above, I get that from S01E05. If there is a more its the vastness of the ocean being floated upon. Wearing this doesnt make me feel sexy, but it has occurred to me that Id find it kind of sexy if I smelled it on my significant other.
4. Burr says the fragrance is literal, almost photo realism. Do you experience that characteristic, and if so, what do you think it is about the fragrance that causes this impression?
I think the object referenced by S01E05 is sea (salt), and I do see it as a literal translation. I dont get salt in the sense of the saltiness of sweat; its a more mineral salt. I recognize vetiver and cedar contributing to the effect. The beginning of the scent, which does evolve on the skin, has citrus notes, but to me theyre not really part of what creates the sea-salt impression. There is also an undefined green note that some seem to be interpreting as cucumber. Well, maybe sea cucumber? Ironically, I think the sea shells in the Romantic-style painting I posted are peeking out of this scent, too!

Even though we're seeing this in different ways (you on the water, me on the agro-seas of Kansas), I think it's fascinating that we're getting the same kind of spatial thing. And the same level of "sexy" - as in not overtly, but that it's definitely *nice*, and could contribute to it.

I tried to avoid picking apart the dry, earthy parts of it, because I wanted to just experience that. I think it was more like brine or dried sea-salt to you, and more like plant dust to me. I think we are bringing our closest experiences to the fragrance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Perfume_Addict View Post

I think its interesting that we both mentioned the idea of being alone when smelling this, and its not being a perfume. What does that mean, do you think?

Great questions. My immediate response - almost flippant, but not meant that way - is that perhaps it's showing us that this thing really is artistic. That it's all about experiencing it, best done alone, and not about wearing it as something to catch the attention of others, like we tend to think of a perfume.

So much of personal fragrance is wrapped up in other people smelling it. This thing just seems unconcerned with that. I even compared it to a very artistic green scent (similar, but not the same), and THAT fragrance seemed more like a perfume. This one feels less like a true perfume, and more like a parfum d'ambiance. Yet TOTALLY wearable.
Reply
Reply
post #32 of 128
10/10/12 at 9:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redneck Perfumisto View Post

Great questions. My immediate response - almost flippant, but not meant that way - is that perhaps it's showing us that this thing really is artistic. That it's all about experiencing it, best done alone, and not about wearing it as something to catch the attention of others, like we tend to think of a perfume.

So much of personal fragrance is wrapped up in other people smelling it. This thing just seems unconcerned with that. I even compared it to a very artistic green scent (similar, but not the same), and THAT fragrance seemed more like a perfume. This one feels less like a true perfume, and more like a parfum d'ambiance. Yet TOTALLY wearable.

Not at all flippant, and agree, it may be the way we prefer to experience it as art as opposed to attire.
Reply
Reply
post #33 of 128
10/10/12 at 9:40pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babsvs View Post

I received my E05 today. I am not ready for any kind of real description of it. I can say that the opening is unique. For about 5 seconds there is some wood, and then there is a green, vegetable sort of note with some lemon and salt. I have to be honest, it smells like cucumber to me.

Everything you're saying now makes sense to me. I'm actually glad I waited before reading your thoughts!

Yes - that green, vegatal note *really* jumped out at me. That was the thing I really noticed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Babsvs View Post

I now feel ready to answer perfume addict's questions

1. I am sorry to say that S05 did not evoke any feeling in me, and I can't see myself wearing it. That might change, and I might change toward it, but I didn't get a strong feeling of any sort. It certainly seems well contructed with a green/citrus opening, a floral green heart and a very long lasting wood drydown.

I think I would have said the same, had I not already some experience with the scent. But going back to when I did first wear it, I remember debating whether it was something I would want to wear - whether I could, at that time, see myself wearing it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Babsvs View Post

2. It is minimalist in that I did not smell a bouquet of notes. I got citrus, something green (cucumber?) and salt up top. The cucumber proceeded into the heart, and became a green floral. The drydown seemed like one wood note for quite a long time. I did get more is more only in the duration of the wood drydown. The scent is not at all sensual in my opinion. I did not get the reference to the song Mr. Burr referenced in E05.

Agreed on it being minimalist for the same reason. And I get what you're saying about it not being sensual. And I'm still scratching my head about the song, but I don't really know it, so I'm giving benefit of the doubt on that for now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Babsvs View Post

3. E05 does not strike me as plush or rich. The wood and cucumber/citrus are saturated. As mentioned above, this is not my idea of sexy or sensual, but surely that is subjective. It is not at all romantic in the 18th century sense of the word. Romantics like Goethe (Young Werther), Byron, Keats, Whitman or Delacroix were concerned with the beauty of nature, the sensitivity of the artist, and spirituality. To quote Whitman from Song of Myself

Houses and rooms are full of perfumes, the shelves are
crowded with perfumes,
I breathe the fragrance myself and know it and like it,
The distillation would intoxicate me also, but I shall not let it.

The atmosphere is not a perfume, it has no taste of the
distillation, it is odorless,
It is for my mouth forever, I am in love with it,
I will go to the bank by the wood and become undisguised
and naked,
I am mad for it to be in contact with me.


When I think of a scent that is in the romantic tradition, using pretty much anything by the painter Delacroix as a reference, I think of Jubilation XXV or Portrait of a Lady.

Agreed - not plush or rich, unless measured from an EDC perspective, and even then, I don't quite see either descriptor. I can definitely see JXXV and PoaL as being analogous to many Romantic paintings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Babsvs View Post

4. I did get a very strong literal image of a cucumber. I think that it is very possible that I have this note completely wrong. I did spend a fair amount of time with the top, but I need to try it again. I think that I may have had a literal image in my mind from the text. I saw an overgrown garden with rich dark earth and vines that were climbing up the side of a house or even the trees. I didn't get that at all from E05. Again, I need to go back and see if this is a different garden than I was imagining from the scent. I was imagining something like Une Rose or even Apres l'Ondee. My ideal enchanted gardens are the one from The Secret Garden or from a Midsummer Night's Dream. There is nothing in the description that indicates flower garden, so maybe this is more of a vegetable garden? Again, I need to re-visit the beginning.

I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt on anything herbal or vegatal, but I see what you're saying. I did think there was a strong vine-like parallel with E02 (Mugler Cologne).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Babsvs View Post

I also did not get any interplay of shadows and light. I really tried to find this. IMO once a note establishes itself, it holds center stage, and there were no other notes creeping in from the shadows. Again, I need to smell this again.

I did not see any obvious shadows and light, but I do get some color and tactile imagery - soft hues, light colors with cottony-fabric textures. Probably the same as you - I need more sniffs from a different perspective.

Thanks for your thoughts on this!
Reply
Reply
post #34 of 128
10/11/12 at 2:01am
It seems that as a group, we have opinions about E05 that are both like and unlike. That said, I think that we are all making a serious effort to discuss E05 in an intelligent manner. I am stumbling on the way Romanticism is being defined. First off, Jicky was not released during the Romantic era, it was released during the Victorian Era. The Victorians were fern crazy.

NOTE: I can't get these images to show up. I have the URLs there. Can anyone fix this?

Romantic Art

http://www.abcgallery.com/D/delacroix/delacroix9.html


Victorian Art

http://www.abcgallery.com/W/whistler/whistler7.html


The Romantics absolutely looked over their shoulders. They admired the Romans and Greeks. Keat's house is in Rome, just below the Spanish Steps. The Romantics were concerned about creativiy, self expression, and understanding man and god's place within the universe. They were social activists, fighting against man's inhumanity to man. The Victorian's as a group were more concerned about fitting in and being accepted by society. Howard's End comes to mind.

To me, if E05 is a Romantic fragrance, it would be have to be very unique, although having predecessors seems like it is quite natural. E05 is unique and not unique at the same time. It is a green/citrus that dries down to a woody base. That's not unusual. I do think that the vegetable (?) used is unusual. There are probably unique uses of the aroma chemicals that I don't understand.

Question 1 - Is Romanticism intended to mean unique, expressing the self, and religious/mystical?

Question 2 - Are "unique", "mystical", or "self-relevetory" the romantic qualities others were looking for in E05?

Part 2

I'm also stuck as to our nose as a photorealist. We are told the nose is not a post-modernist. Photorealists build images from photographs. This movement arose out of Pop Art, and neither of these two schools of art are big on landscapes. The Romantics of course, worship the earth's beauty and painted landscapes. Photorealists differ from abstract expressionists. The best way I know to describe the romantic ancestry of abstract expressionism is to watch the film Pollock as he lies on the ground observing a tidal pool, and then paints a completely non-objective piece in which you can just feel that tidal pool. Photorealism is a post-modern art form, driving "fine" and "everyday" art closer together and using objective forms to do so.

Our nose is then referred to as a 21st century romantic. An example of a 21st C romantic that most people have heard of is the poet Allen Ginsberg. His work is deeply personal, spiritual, and filled with the beauty of the natural world.

Question 1 - If our nose is not a post-modernist, can he be a photorealist?
Question 3 - Is he a photo realist because he designed the structure of his scent by breaking it down into grids (imaginary or real)?

I'm sure that in the world of contemporary art, the photorealists like Chuck Close, don't get in on line, while the 21C romanticists like Maxfield Parrish, get on another line. People are individuals, and perhaps artists, like rappers, sample from a variety of different schools of painting.

Question 4 - Is our E05 nose, like Picasso, someone who changes styles and uses a different syle either simultaneously on the same scent, or simultaneously on different scents made at the same time. I am not talking about a style evolution, like JC Ellena creating Rumba and then creating his contemporary work for Hermes.

I have to say, I don't personally see this "sampling" in E05, but I am thinking about it in several places. In the first five seconds of the top I got a wood note and then poof, it was gone. I thought it was pretty cool that the composer got what is usually a durable note to be so fleeting. The vegetal note in the top/heart is unique, and perhaps it is a combination of notes. Finally, E05 lasted for about 20 hours on me. At the end the wood turned into a dry wood and I also got a whiff of incense.

I would really appreciate other peoples' thoughts and opinions.
Reply
Reply
post #35 of 128
10/11/12 at 4:40am
@Babsv, love your contribution, makes so much sense to me, thank you for sharing!

@Red & @Perfume_addict, how fascinating that you both experience that 'alone' element, thank you for sharing your experiences and thoughts!

My question to y'all art history experts: if you would really smell E05 blind, without CB's connotations, but rather look at E05 as a piece of art that one would see in an art gallery, what art movement do you think would fit E05 best?
Reply
Reply
post #36 of 128
10/11/12 at 5:49pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babsvs View Post

NOTE: I can't get these images to show up. I have the URLs there. Can anyone fix this?

Romantic Art

http://www.abcgallery.com/D/delacroix/delacroix9.html


Victorian Art

http://www.abcgallery.com/W/whistler/whistler7.html


Just right click on the images themselves to get the URLs. I copied the images to my own online stash in order to preserve the links. If you use PhotoBucket, they even give you the image URL with image tags that work at BN.

Here are your images and labels repeated:

Romantic Art



Victorian Art



Quote:
Originally Posted by Irina View Post

@Babsv, love your contribution, makes so much sense to me, thank you for sharing!

@Red & @Perfume_addict, how fascinating that you both experience that 'alone' element, thank you for sharing your experiences and thoughts!

My question to y'all art history experts: if you would really smell E05 blind, without CB's connotations, but rather look at E05 as a piece of art that one would see in an art gallery, what art movement do you think would fit E05 best?

As a non-expert, I will leave this dangerous question to others, so as not to sustain any injuries!
Reply
Reply
post #37 of 128
10/11/12 at 7:27pm
Thank you for fixing the images!

I am not an art history expert at all. I have my BAFA in it, and love it, but it is more love than knowledge. I am not sure what school I would but E05 into from an art historical perspective. I do find similarity between JC Ellena and E05. Perfume experts, does anyone else see this or am I completely off course?
Reply
Reply
post #38 of 128
10/11/12 at 8:23pm
I have to admit that Romanticism is a pretty fuzzy concept for me. It's characterized by emphasis on emotion, individual imagination and creativity, and the rejection of rationalism. It encompasses Rousseau's philosophy of "a state of nature" characterized by his statement that "nothing is so gentle as man in his primitive state, when placed by nature at an equal distance from the stupidity of brutes and the fatal enlightenment of civil man."

It seems that Romanticism gave birth to Realism, so I'm not really sure the two are mutually exclusive.

Based on this, I can see S01E05 fitting into Romanticism in some respects, in the sense that the perfumer interpreted nature through his own vision (imagination) of it, and gave us something idealized. We can recognize what it's supposed to be, but it's not a mirror image. However, with scent, I think you have to be pretty literal if you want people to recognize what your vision is. With abstractions, I'm not sure you'll get more than a "that smells good" or "that smells strange". I think there has to be a certain amount of Realism in a fragrance that refers to a specific object.

IMO, the Mugler may have been pop art; Infusion d'Iris, Impressionistic; L'Etrog, Abstract; Yuzu Rouge, Realism.
Reply
Reply
post #39 of 128
10/11/12 at 9:55pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babsvs View Post

Thank you for fixing the images!

I am not an art history expert at all. I have my BAFA in it, and love it, but it is more love than knowledge. I am not sure what school I would but E05 into from an art historical perspective. I do find similarity between JC Ellena and E05. Perfume experts, does anyone else see this or am I completely off course?

Let's just say that I totally agree with you that this scent is in the "Ellena school of transparency", though not necessarily the best example of the style. I think you made an exceptionally good guess, but I will avoid telegraphing who I think actually did this.

Here is what Burr said, with emphasis added:

Quote:
E05 is a work in the literalist style, contemporary figuratism, almost photo realism. The name contains the object that the artist is ostensibly photographing, but like all photo realism this is aesthetic trick. The work is so much more. Its creator obviously knows the plush, gold-leaf-and scarlet-velvet romanticism of Aimé Guerlains Jicky (1889) and the 1999 version of Jicky, the brilliant synthetic-curtain post-Romanticist sensuality of Michel Almairacs Rush. E05 is an ingenious 21st century romanticism that uses the olfactory photo to paint shadows within light, sensual and pungent nature, a realist dark green from an enchanted garden with rich soil and sinuous vinesa garden you retreat to with pleasureand a beauty that looks you in the eye and smiles.

So it looks like Burr is calling it literalist, contemporary figuratism, almost realism, with references to Romanticism and post-Romanticism. He then basically calls it - essentially - an example of a kind of neo-romanticism.

I can see calling Jicky romanticist, just chronologically, but also stylistically. I am taking his word on Rush, because I know so little about modern schools of art, other than what I know about fragrance, minus the labels. And I can see calling E05 literalist and realist. But if one can equate the hazy style of so many impressionist painters with the soft and out-of-focus texture of this fragrance, then I would say that it has some impressionistic elements - and perhaps the same ones that leak into such a large number of contemporary paintings.

Like I said, when I use art phraseology like that, it's a bit like a toddler with a switchblade. I'm hoping for somebody like a delinquent older sister to at least show me how to use it properly by correction.
Reply
Reply
post #40 of 128
10/11/12 at 11:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redneck Perfumisto View Post

Like I said, when I use art phraseology like that, it's a bit like a toddler with a switchblade. I'm hoping for somebody like a delinquent older sister to at least show me how to use it properly by correction.

LOL totally get what you mean, I would love a good teacher too But I think that you, Babsvs and Perfume_Addict are doing a mighty fine job!
Reply
Reply
post #41 of 128
10/12/12 at 12:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redneck Perfumisto View Post

Let's just say that I totally agree with you that this scent is in the "Ellena school of transparency", though not necessarily the best example of the style. I think you made an exceptionally good guess, but I will avoid telegraphing who I think actually did this.

Here is what Burr said, with emphasis added:


So it looks like Burr is calling it literalist, contemporary figuratism, almost realism, with references to Romanticism and post-Romanticism. He then basically calls it - essentially - an example of a kind of neo-romanticism.

I can see calling Jicky romanticist, just chronologically, but also stylistically. I am taking his word on Rush, because I know so little about modern schools of art, other than what I know about fragrance, minus the labels. And I can see calling E05 literalist and realist. But if one can equate the hazy style of so many impressionist painters with the soft and out-of-focus texture of this fragrance, then I would say that it has some impressionistic elements - and perhaps the same ones that leak into such a large number of contemporary paintings.

Like I said, when I use art phraseology like that, it's a bit like a toddler with a switchblade. I'm hoping for somebody like a delinquent older sister to at least show me how to use it properly by correction.

I wanted to clarify that JC Ellena is not my guess. He doesn't fit the text as given by Burr. I crossed him off my list because he is the in-house perfumer for Hermes. Burr says that the house in question keeps awarding the nose commissions. To the best of my understanding an in house perfumer does not have to submit briefs, but perhaps I am mistaken.

I actually do not see Jicky as being of the romantic period, I see it of the Victorian period. The Romantic period went from (extended dates) 1770-1870). The Victorian period formally began in 1837 and ended around 1910, overlapping with La Belle Epoque. The plushness Mr. Burr is describing is more of the Victorian era than the Romantic era. There was a fern frenzy during the Victorian era, and Jicky is a fougere, meaning fern.


I liked your list of all of the schools of art list you made. Burr calls E05

Literalist (also called minimalist, jackpot, only one image) - Donald Judd, 1969

http://www.guggenheim.org/new-york/c...object=91.3713

Contemporary Figuratism - Jose Manuel Merrello
http://www.merello.com/Pinturas/pagi..._amarillas.htm

Photo realism - Chuck Close

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chuck_Close_2.jpg

Contemporary Romantic - Anthony A. Gonzalez

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...QEwCQ&dur=4213

I did find a painting that looks exactly how I envision the perfume. The artist, Paul R. Keysar, calls it Traditional Realism. I like the brushwork on the cucumber.

Paul R. Keysar - Cucumber Slices
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...QEwBA&dur=2141


I want to stress how very subjective I think this is. Just as a note I have on Fleur de Liane and Calamus with C05. They are more to my taste. I find the bitterness in E05 offputting.
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 128
10/12/12 at 3:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babsvs View Post

I did find a painting that looks exactly how I envision the perfume. The artist, Paul R. Keysar, calls it Traditional Realism. I like the brushwork on the cucumber.

Paul R. Keysar - Cucumber Slices
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...QEwBA&dur=2141

Very very interesting, Babsvs and really well written and illustrative descriptions of the different movements, thank you, I enjoy your comments hugely!
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 128
10/12/12 at 2:31pm
You are kind to say so. I love art history so much. When I pass I want my ashes scattered in the art history lecture hall in Popejoy Hall at the U of New Mexico. (kidding)
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 128
10/12/12 at 5:36pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irina View Post

LOL totally get what you mean, I would love a good teacher too But I think that you, Babsvs and Perfume_Addict are doing a mighty fine job!

Thanks!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Babsvs View Post

I wanted to clarify that JC Ellena is not my guess. He doesn't fit the text as given by Burr. I crossed him off my list because he is the in-house perfumer for Hermes. Burr says that the house in question keeps awarding the nose commissions. To the best of my understanding an in house perfumer does not have to submit briefs, but perhaps I am mistaken.

Understood, and I agree that this makes it less likely to be him. Despite the fact that he is their in-house perfumer, I would assume that both house and perfumer have clauses which allow them to play the field. I know that in-house perfumers (Wasser, Polge, etc.) frequently take advantage of such options to explore niche perfumery for smaller companies while they are in-house. And there are cases where outside perfumers are sometimes used for certain side-projects - though this isn't as common (and is typically seen at times of uncertainty for the in-house perfumer's continued work at the house). All in all, I think the nose here is still debatable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Babsvs View Post

I actually do not see Jicky as being of the romantic period, I see it of the Victorian period. The Romantic period went from (extended dates) 1770-1870). The Victorian period formally began in 1837 and ended around 1910, overlapping with La Belle Epoque. The plushness Mr. Burr is describing is more of the Victorian era than the Romantic era. There was a fern frenzy during the Victorian era, and Jicky is a fougere, meaning fern.


I liked your list of all of the schools of art list you made. Burr calls E05

Literalist (also called minimalist, jackpot, only one image) - Donald Judd, 1969

http://www.guggenheim.org/new-york/c...object=91.3713

Contemporary Figuratism - Jose Manuel Merrello
http://www.merello.com/Pinturas/pagi..._amarillas.htm

Photo realism - Chuck Close

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chuck_Close_2.jpg

Contemporary Romantic - Anthony A. Gonzalez

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...QEwCQ&dur=4213

I did find a painting that looks exactly how I envision the perfume. The artist, Paul R. Keysar, calls it Traditional Realism. I like the brushwork on the cucumber.

Paul R. Keysar - Cucumber Slices
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...QEwBA&dur=2141

Very nice! Thanks for these examples!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Babsvs View Post

I want to stress how very subjective I think this is. Just as a note I have on Fleur de Liane and Calamus with C05. They are more to my taste. I find the bitterness in E05 offputting.

You know, it's funny. This stuff made me pull out Fleur de Liane as well! Another near-buy for me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irina View Post

Very very interesting, Babsvs and really well written and illustrative descriptions of the different movements, thank you, I enjoy your comments hugely!

Seconded!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Babsvs View Post

You are kind to say so. I love art history so much. When I pass I want my ashes scattered in the art history lecture hall in Popejoy Hall at the U of New Mexico. (kidding)

I love this, whether you're kidding or not!!!

I still dream of the undergraduate chemistry labs where I first smelled uncommon organic chemicals.
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 128
10/13/12 at 1:20pm
Enjoying reading the responses from those who have received their bottles (I ordered on the 4th, just today received an email stating order was being processed and should arrive in 5-7 days . . . grrrrrrrr), but now I'm worried this is going to be another exercise in watery/green/minimalist/cologne-type sniffing.
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 128
10/13/12 at 2:12pm
Bitter green and resembles Jicky? That makes me curious, while the allusions to cucumber worry me . . . hopefully no calone.
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 128
10/13/12 at 4:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somerville Metro Man View Post

Mine is also on its way according to my e-mail and I will attempt to answer these questions once I have a chance to wear it.

The one thing in the intro which has me intrigued is that Chandler has mentioned he thinks this perfume house's collection is one of the top six or seven in the world.

If we sort of take as a given that Guerlain and Chanel are probably one and two on his list which might be overextrapolation on my part anyone want to hazard any guesses on which house this could be before we have anything to sniff?

I would think Frederic Malle would qualify but the price makes me think that isn't it.
Maybe Annick Goutal and Isabelle Doyen? Or Cartier and Mathilde Laurent? i can see fragrances from both of those fitting his description.

We haven't been commenting on this question. Does anyone have any ideas?
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 128
10/19/12 at 6:00am
Well, I'm out. Just received this email from Open Sky:

* * *

We're contacting you to update you on the status of your "The Untitled Series: S01E05". We had hoped to have your order shipped by now but unfortunately we're still experiencing delays with the supplier of this product.

We continue to work closely with the manufacturer to get your order completed but we estimate that it will take another 7 business days to ship.

Due to the inconvenience we're adding a $10 credit to your account for your next purchase. We sincerely apologize for this delay and invite you to contact us at 1-877-734-6736 or help@opensky.com if you have any questions or would like to cancel your order.

* * *

Will cancel and won't play again. I ordered back at the beginning of the month, around the 5th, I think. Doesn't look like Burr/Open Sky/Supplier can all get on the same page together. And this in a day and age where Amazon can get me something I order from a supplier half way around the country on a Tuesday by that Thursday with no hassle? Fuggedaboutit.
Reply
Reply
post #49 of 128
10/19/12 at 8:05pm
This is my last one too. I don't need any more wispy green scents. I am sorry that you never got your sample. I also don't want to play again because Mr. Burr and our host/moderator don't participate on the boards. When Katie P was moderating she was really active.
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 128
10/20/12 at 5:50am
Haven't read any other people on the thread for a week and I want to use Perfume Addict's questions in as unaffected state as possible so if I am repeating anyone else I'll mention it after I go back and read.

1. How does S01E05 make you feel? What mood does it create? When would you see yourself wearing it? Do you think others like it on you?

S01E05 makes me feel content when I have been wearing it. I would wear this as a daytime scent and as a weekend fragrance, it does not feel like something I would choose for a night out or as a romantic accompaniment. My wife likes it on me.

2. In what way would you describe this fragrance as “less”? Is it minimalist?

I wouldn't call this minimalist as it never seems to "turn over" on me. what i get from the first moments is what I get from the last moments. E05 feels like a still life like an olfactory moment in time frozen. Because it doesn't develop it does cause me to look at it closely and in that examination I appreciate the layers and nuances that are here. E05 is a green leafy experience but there are also other things to notice. This might be the most obviously "constructed" entry in the Untitled series so far.

3. In what way is the fragrance “more”? Is it plush, rich, saturated? Is it sexy or sensual, and why? Is it romantic (in the 18th century sense), and why?

I wouldn't use any of these adjectives to describe E05. E05 is of the earth and it is an olfactory image of green growing things but it never rises to the level of volume that would make me use any of the above words to describe it.

4. Burr says the fragrance is literal, almost photo realism. Do you experience that characteristic, and if so, what do you think it is about the fragrance that causes this impression?

This is a snapshot of a green growing plant of some kind it captures not only the green but that weirdly spicy quality I've always found underneath things in nature and so this time "photo realism" does seem an apt choice for me.

- - - Updated - - -

Just read through everyone else's responses. If I'm going to apply art criticism here it would have to be photo realism. At its best the artist uses a single point of vision to explore the complexity of something that on its surface should have no depth. Only when you are faced with really looking at it do you see the other things.
The only photorealist artist i have any knowledge of is Richard Estes and he excelled at doing this with city milieus. His most well-known piece is this one called Telephone Booths



What I think is so great about this painting is what I find fascinating about E05.

In Estes' painting it is at first the phone booths then the people in the phone booths I notice but the feature which eventually draws me in to this piece of art and make it fascinating to me is the distorted reflections in the doors of the phone booths. What is that bit of yellow on the right, the building in the middle is clear and the bit of neon sign on the left what is that? That is where my emotions and thoughts go when looking at this.

E05 did a similar thing for me at first it is the green growing thing that is at the heart of this but then as I mentioned above there is that spicy note of Nature that rarely gets captured in a perfume. I am sure the perfumer used some pepper but the presence of that note is like the blurred images in the phone booths. Makes me ask where I am; garden bench, canoe in the Everglades, hiking trail crossing a field. Whichever image I choose for the moment informs my feeling and sense of E05. E05 like Estes work invites a surface examination but I was willing to spend some time with it to find the reflected distortions in the doors.

I have to say that E05 definitely is another transparent fragrance very similar to the other four entries and this really is starting to make this experience feel very similar from entry to entry. I am going to press Chandler a little harder on this point at the next reveal because this is not different in feel to the previous four entries. On the other hand we have now had five transparent pieces of olfactory art chosen by our curator. While I can use transparent to describe all of them would I say they are constructed the same or make me feel the same?

I'm not sure I would ever equate E05 with minimalist if that word is exemplified by Ellena. To me minimalist means a few well chosen notes which create a sense of unexpected interactions. E05 does not do this for me it is a single moment of things growing in the earth.
Reply
Reply
post #51 of 128
10/20/12 at 8:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somerville Metro Man View Post

Haven't read any other people on the thread for a week and I want to use Perfume Addict's questions in as unaffected state as possible so if I am repeating anyone else I'll mention it after I go back and read.

1. How does S01E05 make you feel? What mood does it create? When would you see yourself wearing it? Do you think others like it on you?

S01E05 makes me feel content when I have been wearing it. I would wear this as a daytime scent and as a weekend fragrance, it does not feel like something I would choose for a night out or as a romantic accompaniment. My wife likes it on me.

2. In what way would you describe this fragrance as less? Is it minimalist?

I wouldn't call this minimalist as it never seems to "turn over" on me. what i get from the first moments is what I get from the last moments. E05 feels like a still life like an olfactory moment in time frozen. Because it doesn't develop it does cause me to look at it closely and in that examination I appreciate the layers and nuances that are here. E05 is a green leafy experience but there are also other things to notice. This might be the most obviously "constructed" entry in the Untitled series so far.

3. In what way is the fragrance more? Is it plush, rich, saturated? Is it sexy or sensual, and why? Is it romantic (in the 18th century sense), and why?

I wouldn't use any of these adjectives to describe E05. E05 is of the earth and it is an olfactory image of green growing things but it never rises to the level of volume that would make me use any of the above words to describe it.

4. Burr says the fragrance is literal, almost photo realism. Do you experience that characteristic, and if so, what do you think it is about the fragrance that causes this impression?

This is a snapshot of a green growing plant of some kind it captures not only the green but that weirdly spicy quality I've always found underneath things in nature and so this time "photo realism" does seem an apt choice for me.

- - - Updated - - -

Just read through everyone else's responses. If I'm going to apply art criticism here it would have to be photo realism. At its best the artist uses a single point of vision to explore the complexity of something that on its surface should have no depth. Only when you are faced with really looking at it do you see the other things.
The only photorealist artist i have any knowledge of is Richard Estes and he excelled at doing this with city milieus. His most well-known piece is this one called Telephone Booths



What I think is so great about this painting is what I find fascinating about E05.

In Estes' painting it is at first the phone booths then the people in the phone booths I notice but the feature which eventually draws me in to this piece of art and make it fascinating to me is the distorted reflections in the doors of the phone booths. What is that bit of yellow on the right, the building in the middle is clear and the bit of neon sign on the left what is that? That is where my emotions and thoughts go when looking at this.

E05 did a similar thing for me at first it is the green growing thing that is at the heart of this but then as I mentioned above there is that spicy note of Nature that rarely gets captured in a perfume. I am sure the perfumer used some pepper but the presence of that note is like the blurred images in the phone booths. Makes me ask where I am; garden bench, canoe in the Everglades, hiking trail crossing a field. Whichever image I choose for the moment informs my feeling and sense of E05. E05 like Estes work invites a surface examination but I was willing to spend some time with it to find the reflected distortions in the doors.

I have to say that E05 definitely is another transparent fragrance very similar to the other four entries and this really is starting to make this experience feel very similar from entry to entry. I am going to press Chandler a little harder on this point at the next reveal because this is not different in feel to the previous four entries. On the other hand we have now had five transparent pieces of olfactory art chosen by our curator. While I can use transparent to describe all of them would I say they are constructed the same or make me feel the same?

I'm not sure I would ever equate E05 with minimalist if that word is exemplified by Ellena. To me minimalist means a few well chosen notes which create a sense of unexpected interactions. E05 does not do this for me it is a single moment of things growing in the earth.

Nice. This certainly makes me want to sniff it now, which is good, because I don't have a choice. Although the email to me clearly states I have the option to cancel my order, when I did, I received a curt, "sorry, no can do, your order has already been processed" reply. Hasn't been shipped, mind you, just "processed." Maybe I'll get it by the second coming?

Your description is intriguing. Like Babsvs, I need another "wispy green" like I need a hole in my head, but this sounds like something just a tad richer.
Reply
Reply
post #52 of 128
10/20/12 at 6:04pm
Thread Starter 
I sent out some samples last Monday. I'm hoping that we'll be getting a new round of comments very soon. Stay tuned!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Babsvs View Post

We haven't been commenting on this question. Does anyone have any ideas?

Actually, I'm afraid to comment because I think I know the scent. But I encourage others to do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Babsvs View Post

This is my last one too. I don't need any more wispy green scents. I am sorry that you never got your sample. I also don't want to play again because Mr. Burr and our host/moderator don't participate on the boards. When Katie P was moderating she was really active.

I have to say, the wispy green and citrus scents are piling up rather quickly!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Somerville Metro Man View Post

Haven't read any other people on the thread for a week and I want to use Perfume Addict's questions in as unaffected state as possible so if I am repeating anyone else I'll mention it after I go back and read.

1. How does S01E05 make you feel? What mood does it create? When would you see yourself wearing it? Do you think others like it on you?

S01E05 makes me feel content when I have been wearing it. I would wear this as a daytime scent and as a weekend fragrance, it does not feel like something I would choose for a night out or as a romantic accompaniment. My wife likes it on me.

2. In what way would you describe this fragrance as “less”? Is it minimalist?

I wouldn't call this minimalist as it never seems to "turn over" on me. what i get from the first moments is what I get from the last moments. E05 feels like a still life like an olfactory moment in time frozen. Because it doesn't develop it does cause me to look at it closely and in that examination I appreciate the layers and nuances that are here. E05 is a green leafy experience but there are also other things to notice. This might be the most obviously "constructed" entry in the Untitled series so far.

3. In what way is the fragrance “more”? Is it plush, rich, saturated? Is it sexy or sensual, and why? Is it romantic (in the 18th century sense), and why?

I wouldn't use any of these adjectives to describe E05. E05 is of the earth and it is an olfactory image of green growing things but it never rises to the level of volume that would make me use any of the above words to describe it.

4. Burr says the fragrance is literal, almost photo realism. Do you experience that characteristic, and if so, what do you think it is about the fragrance that causes this impression?

This is a snapshot of a green growing plant of some kind it captures not only the green but that weirdly spicy quality I've always found underneath things in nature and so this time "photo realism" does seem an apt choice for me.

- - - Updated - - -

Just read through everyone else's responses. If I'm going to apply art criticism here it would have to be photo realism. At its best the artist uses a single point of vision to explore the complexity of something that on its surface should have no depth. Only when you are faced with really looking at it do you see the other things.
The only photorealist artist i have any knowledge of is Richard Estes and he excelled at doing this with city milieus. His most well-known piece is this one called Telephone Booths



What I think is so great about this painting is what I find fascinating about E05.

In Estes' painting it is at first the phone booths then the people in the phone booths I notice but the feature which eventually draws me in to this piece of art and make it fascinating to me is the distorted reflections in the doors of the phone booths. What is that bit of yellow on the right, the building in the middle is clear and the bit of neon sign on the left what is that? That is where my emotions and thoughts go when looking at this.

E05 did a similar thing for me at first it is the green growing thing that is at the heart of this but then as I mentioned above there is that spicy note of Nature that rarely gets captured in a perfume. I am sure the perfumer used some pepper but the presence of that note is like the blurred images in the phone booths. Makes me ask where I am; garden bench, canoe in the Everglades, hiking trail crossing a field. Whichever image I choose for the moment informs my feeling and sense of E05. E05 like Estes work invites a surface examination but I was willing to spend some time with it to find the reflected distortions in the doors.

I have to say that E05 definitely is another transparent fragrance very similar to the other four entries and this really is starting to make this experience feel very similar from entry to entry. I am going to press Chandler a little harder on this point at the next reveal because this is not different in feel to the previous four entries. On the other hand we have now had five transparent pieces of olfactory art chosen by our curator. While I can use transparent to describe all of them would I say they are constructed the same or make me feel the same?

I'm not sure I would ever equate E05 with minimalist if that word is exemplified by Ellena. To me minimalist means a few well chosen notes which create a sense of unexpected interactions. E05 does not do this for me it is a single moment of things growing in the earth.

Nice impressions!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by PerfumePorMoi View Post

Nice. This certainly makes me want to sniff it now, which is good, because I don't have a choice. Although the email to me clearly states I have the option to cancel my order, when I did, I received a curt, "sorry, no can do, your order has already been processed" reply. Hasn't been shipped, mind you, just "processed." Maybe I'll get it by the second coming?

Your description is intriguing. Like Babsvs, I need another "wispy green" like I need a hole in my head, but this sounds like something just a tad richer.

This is an enjoyable scent. Even though all of these first five choices seem to show some sort of odd similarity, they are still fairly diverse within their bounding box.
Reply
Reply
post #53 of 128
10/21/12 at 4:32pm
Hi everyone! ROtto brought his full bottle of EO5 to our San Francisco sniff yesterday, so we sprayed it on paper and all passed it around our lunch table. The consistent imagery that everyone agreed on was "surgery". One of our sniffers said it reminded her of that blast of chemical smell you get as you're being anesthetized. Pretty much everyone was describing cold white surgery rooms and the way that a room devoid of scented products can still smell so strongly of chemicals.

Anyway, I thought that was interesting because it's so completely the opposite of what the discussion here has agreed on.

So, I'm wearing it today and I'll play by the BN rules:

1. How does S01E05 make you feel? What mood does it create? When would you see yourself wearing it? Do you think others like it on you?

In a way that's hard to describe without getting into the minutia of notes and such, I find EO5 to be natural but gross. As such, it doesn't evoke comfort or feel like anything I can imagine anyone enjoying smelling on me, though I find it creative and interesting. I'd wear it when I wanted something a little challenging, likely when I had plans to be alone.

2. In what way would you describe this fragrance as “less”? Is it minimalist?

I suppose it's minimalist in the sense that it doesn't have as much going on as, say, a classic aldehydic floral would - There's a lot happening, but it's all focused in one direction, little nuances are there but they all point towards green vegetation and its gross undercurrents.

3. In what way is the fragrance “more”? Is it plush, rich, saturated? Is it sexy or sensual, and why? Is it romantic (in the 18th century sense), and why?

No to sexy or sensual, no to saturated. No to romantic in the "love" sense.

I do find it plush, but not in a velvet romantic way. Have you guys seen the documentary Grey Gardens? The one about the two formerly aristocratic ladies who live in a dilapidated mansion that's completely overgrown with ivy? This makes me think of that house. Sort of beautiful but with nature overgrowing everything so it's gotten a bit wild and nasty. There's a plushness to out-of-control vines - lots of dark crevices and shadows giving unseen depth and a sense of danger.

4. Burr says the fragrance is literal, almost photo realism. Do you experience that characteristic, and if so, what do you think it is about the fragrance that causes this impression?

For me, it's those vines. But it's not literal to me.

To tie this all together, I think his reference to Jicky is interesting, because Jicky smells kind of beautiful but it has that utterly terrifying poop underneath. And it's not beautiful despite the poop - instead, it's beautiful once you learn to embrace the poop. Maybe that's the romanticism that Chandler is referencing.

As much as I want to avoid simple "note" discussions, I have to bring up that this is a tomato leaf fragrance. I've talked tomato leaf a million times - I find it fascinating that it smells so wonderful but also has a horrifying bile undertone. It's especially funny because, when you smell tomato leaves on an actual tomato plant, the bile smell is barely there. There's something about distilling it into a perfume that brings out the ugliness, and I think there's a wonderful metaphor there that ties in with Jicky. If you have to embrace the poop to see Jicky's beauty, you have to embrace the disgusting undertones to see EO5's beauty.

In terms of the composition (Chandler, you can look away now...), there was a sort of metallic celery note in the beginning, with maybe a pinch of dill, leading to that bell pepper/cilantro smell that reminded me of Piment Brulant. Then, the tomato leaf came forward and became the focus, but all the other facets (maybe some black pepper and mint for brightness as well, along with a deep rubbing alcohol smell underneath) are all like little soldiers marching alongside the tomato leaf, either brightening it or adding depth but always in formation and headed in the same direction - All ingredients lead to ivy!

In terms of imagery, I'm think about those pictures of barns down south that are overgrown with kudzu vines:



Notice how that dark space between the leaves and the vines is every bit as important as as the green of the vines themselves? If you can imagine an image like this painted with a bit of an impressionist haze, where the leaves are less specific and the dark shadows are played up, that's what EO5 makes me think of.
Reply
Reply
post #54 of 128
10/21/12 at 5:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somerville Metro Man View Post

Haven't read any other people on the thread for a week and I want to use Perfume Addict's questions in as unaffected state as possible so if I am repeating anyone else I'll mention it after I go back and read.

1. How does S01E05 make you feel? What mood does it create? When would you see yourself wearing it? Do you think others like it on you?

S01E05 makes me feel content when I have been wearing it. I would wear this as a daytime scent and as a weekend fragrance, it does not feel like something I would choose for a night out or as a romantic accompaniment. My wife likes it on me.

2. In what way would you describe this fragrance as “less”? Is it minimalist?

I wouldn't call this minimalist as it never seems to "turn over" on me. what i get from the first moments is what I get from the last moments. E05 feels like a still life like an olfactory moment in time frozen. Because it doesn't develop it does cause me to look at it closely and in that examination I appreciate the layers and nuances that are here. E05 is a green leafy experience but there are also other things to notice. This might be the most obviously "constructed" entry in the Untitled series so far.

3. In what way is the fragrance “more”? Is it plush, rich, saturated? Is it sexy or sensual, and why? Is it romantic (in the 18th century sense), and why?

I wouldn't use any of these adjectives to describe E05. E05 is of the earth and it is an olfactory image of green growing things but it never rises to the level of volume that would make me use any of the above words to describe it.

4. Burr says the fragrance is literal, almost photo realism. Do you experience that characteristic, and if so, what do you think it is about the fragrance that causes this impression?

This is a snapshot of a green growing plant of some kind it captures not only the green but that weirdly spicy quality I've always found underneath things in nature and so this time "photo realism" does seem an apt choice for me.

- - - Updated - - -

Just read through everyone else's responses. If I'm going to apply art criticism here it would have to be photo realism. At its best the artist uses a single point of vision to explore the complexity of something that on its surface should have no depth. Only when you are faced with really looking at it do you see the other things.
The only photorealist artist i have any knowledge of is Richard Estes and he excelled at doing this with city milieus. His most well-known piece is this one called Telephone Booths



What I think is so great about this painting is what I find fascinating about E05.

In Estes' painting it is at first the phone booths then the people in the phone booths I notice but the feature which eventually draws me in to this piece of art and make it fascinating to me is the distorted reflections in the doors of the phone booths. What is that bit of yellow on the right, the building in the middle is clear and the bit of neon sign on the left what is that? That is where my emotions and thoughts go when looking at this.

E05 did a similar thing for me at first it is the green growing thing that is at the heart of this but then as I mentioned above there is that spicy note of Nature that rarely gets captured in a perfume. I am sure the perfumer used some pepper but the presence of that note is like the blurred images in the phone booths. Makes me ask where I am; garden bench, canoe in the Everglades, hiking trail crossing a field. Whichever image I choose for the moment informs my feeling and sense of E05. E05 like Estes work invites a surface examination but I was willing to spend some time with it to find the reflected distortions in the doors.

I have to say that E05 definitely is another transparent fragrance very similar to the other four entries and this really is starting to make this experience feel very similar from entry to entry. I am going to press Chandler a little harder on this point at the next reveal because this is not different in feel to the previous four entries. On the other hand we have now had five transparent pieces of olfactory art chosen by our curator. While I can use transparent to describe all of them would I say they are constructed the same or make me feel the same?

I'm not sure I would ever equate E05 with minimalist if that word is exemplified by Ellena. To me minimalist means a few well chosen notes which create a sense of unexpected interactions. E05 does not do this for me it is a single moment of things growing in the earth.

Thank you for introducing this wonderful artist. I have not seen his work before, and I like Telephone Booths very much. Your description of it immediately made me think of the layered detail of the 15th century painter, Jan van Eyck. Here is his Virgin of Chancellor Rolin

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...n_Eyck_070.jpg

If you roll on the boxes marked on the painting you see van Eyck's wonderful detail.

Like you, I am very taken with the attention to detail in Telephone Booths and in the Van Eyck. I am not sure that I noticed that amount of detail in E05. I am anosmic to some musks, so it could be me. I did see it as a minimal scent with a green top, a green/floral middle and a woody bottom. That is another point where we diverge. I smelled a very clear classical progression in E05. I think you were saying that you found it linear (what you smelled on top is what you smelled on bottom). I was not getting a wide variety of notes at the top, middle and bottom. IMO, E05 is in the minimalist Ellena/Buxton/Duchafour style.

It is interesting and educational to trade ideas, and once again, I really liked Telephone Booths.
Reply
Reply
post #55 of 128
10/21/12 at 10:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babsvs View Post

I did see it as a minimal scent with a green top, a green/floral middle and a woody bottom. That is another point where we diverge. I smelled a very clear classical progression in E05. I think you were saying that you found it linear (what you smelled on top is what you smelled on bottom).

I agree with you on this. It's later in the day and EO5 has changed a bit. The vines were slowly joined by some green lilies and then overtaken by a mix of neroli and vetiver. I wouldn't be surprised if EO5 is technically a chypre, actually.

But I still think it always points towards green. Unrelentingly. In a way, that's where the phone booth analogy loses me. The whole point of that is the layers, the way you see the booths themselves, the people in them, and the reflections. It's like you're looking in one direction but seeing multiple directions all at once. Whereas EO5 is just green, sometimes dark and scary, other times more bright or sweet, but always green.

The Jan van Eyck is another interesting image, but again, there's so much going on there, including a full and detailed landscape out the window and a bunch of still lives and classic portraiture and that incredibly detailed crown and even more stuff that's all rendered in lurid detail if you look close enough. EO5 doesn't feel like it has that. There's no painstakingly detailed garden outside the window. There's no basket of fruit off to the side. It's just variations on green as a theme and it isn't in the least bit baroque.
Reply
Reply
post #56 of 128
10/22/12 at 2:11pm
I ordered my bottle last week and it's still not here! I am running out of time to skin test this and post my impressions...
Reply
Reply
post #57 of 128
10/22/12 at 8:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babsvs View Post

Thank you for introducing this wonderful artist. I have not seen his work before, and I like Telephone Booths very much. Your description of it immediately made me think of the layered detail of the 15th century painter, Jan van Eyck. Here is his Virgin of Chancellor Rolin

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...n_Eyck_070.jpg

If you roll on the boxes marked on the painting you see van Eyck's wonderful detail.

Like you, I am very taken with the attention to detail in Telephone Booths and in the Van Eyck. I am not sure that I noticed that amount of detail in E05. I am anosmic to some musks, so it could be me. I did see it as a minimal scent with a green top, a green/floral middle and a woody bottom. That is another point where we diverge. I smelled a very clear classical progression in E05. I think you were saying that you found it linear (what you smelled on top is what you smelled on bottom). I was not getting a wide variety of notes at the top, middle and bottom. IMO, E05 is in the minimalist Ellena/Buxton/Duchafour style.

It is interesting and educational to trade ideas, and once again, I really liked Telephone Booths.

Maybe its the power of suggestion, but when I wore S01E05 to bed last night, I was overwhelmed by an unpleasant musk note, one I hadn't noticed in my previous wearings. I really have to remember to do this more often - there's something about the perception of scents by my semi-conscious or unconscious mind (upon dozing off or waking) that makes me more aware of discordant notes. I'm sad to say this almost spoiled S01E05 for me.

As for comments to the effect that all five Untitled Series scents have been transparent, I think that's an inadequate way to classify scents and I have to disagree. No personal attack intended against anyone in particular. Despite being a citrus, L'Etrog is anything but transparent. And transparent wouldn't be the first description that I'd apply to Mugler Cologne. And while I compared S01E05 to a large body of water, I don't think its especially transparent. Would I consider Infusion d'Iris and Yuzu Rouge transparent, yes, although that might lead to the suggestion that they're somehow similar to one another, or fill the same niche in a fragrance wardrobe, and I don't think that's the case. I think maybe the criticism is aimed at something else (I think it is a criticism of the range of scents included in the series.) There seems to be a feeling that some favorite potent scent is missing (where's the patchouli? the vanilla? the oudh?) Am I wrong? What is the opposite of transparent, and what should we be seeing more of in these selections?
Reply
Reply
post #58 of 128
10/22/12 at 9:48pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perfume_Addict View Post

Maybe its the power of suggestion, but when I wore S01E05 to bed last night, I was overwhelmed by an unpleasant musk note, one I hadn't noticed in my previous wearings. I really have to remember to do this more often - there's something about the perception of scents by my semi-conscious or unconscious mind (upon dozing off or waking) that makes me more aware of discordant notes. I'm sad to say this almost spoiled S01E05 for me.

As for comments to the effect that all five Untitled Series scents have been transparent, I think that's an inadequate way to classify scents and I have to disagree. No personal attack intended against anyone in particular. Despite being a citrus, L'Etrog is anything but transparent. And transparent wouldn't be the first description that I'd apply to Mugler Cologne. And while I compared S01E05 to a large body of water, I don't think its especially transparent. Would I consider Infusion d'Iris and Yuzu Rouge transparent, yes, although that might lead to the suggestion that they're somehow similar to one another, or fill the same niche in a fragrance wardrobe, and I don't think that's the case. I think maybe the criticism is aimed at something else (I think it is a criticism of the range of scents included in the series.) There seems to be a feeling that some favorite potent scent is missing (where's the patchouli? the vanilla? the oudh?) Am I wrong? What is the opposite of transparent, and what should we be seeing more of in these selections?

I think you're right that they're not all transparent. I *personally* don't smell them all as transparent by any means.

1: Prada Infusion d'Iris - somewhat transparent (Chandler said luminous - maybe soft white & yellow - translucent?)

2: Mugler Cologne - well, colognes are all somewhat transparent, so maybe, but not totally. Sorta see-through.

3: L'Etrog - citrus - well - kinda transparent to MY nose (all light to me - never dark or opaque - unlike others)

4: Yuzu Rouge - citrus - I think definitely transparent to me

5: S01E05 - to me, white like latex paint or dust. Maybe not transparent but just barely opaque white.

So transparent isn't really the right word, but they're all light in some way. Whether it's clear, transparent, translucent, or white, they're all, what I might call, pale.

There is a real similarity to all these scents. They may be very good breads, but they're all some kind of white bread. A couple of them feel like the Japanese sandwiches with the crust carefully removed. Only the amazing ham and cheese and Japanese mayo saves those damn things. When I'm done with them, my American and European heritages are so crust-craving, we want to eat the nearest brown paper. That's how this selection leaves me. I feel like I want to hose down with Carven Homme or an A*Men flanker. Is that Baroque? Whatever! I'm hungry for REAL OLFACTORY FOOD. Heck - even an Aqua Slider.

I don't feel like I'm gettin' my red meat, carrots, gravy, and brownies. Maybe we need some nice, sharp, chypre cheese. If we have to go L'Arquiste, then a good crusty spiced bread like Anima Dulcis is what I'm cravin'. Not lemonade like L'Etrog!

Sorry - I've got some crusty 3-cheese bread that needs prevention of staleness. Gotta run!
Reply
Reply
post #59 of 128
10/22/12 at 9:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogalal View Post

I agree with you on this. It's later in the day and EO5 has changed a bit. The vines were slowly joined by some green lilies and then overtaken by a mix of neroli and vetiver. I wouldn't be surprised if EO5 is technically a chypre, actually.

But I still think it always points towards green. Unrelentingly. In a way, that's where the phone booth analogy loses me. The whole point of that is the layers, the way you see the booths themselves, the people in them, and the reflections. It's like you're looking in one direction but seeing multiple directions all at once. Whereas EO5 is just green, sometimes dark and scary, other times more bright or sweet, but always green.

The Jan van Eyck is another interesting image, but again, there's so much going on there, including a full and detailed landscape out the window and a bunch of still lives and classic portraiture and that incredibly detailed crown and even more stuff that's all rendered in lurid detail if you look close enough. EO5 doesn't feel like it has that. There's no painstakingly detailed garden outside the window. There's no basket of fruit off to the side. It's just variations on green as a theme and it isn't in the least bit baroque.

Agree completely. I don't see E05 as detailed at all, as noted in my original post. I was responding to Telephone Booths which was new to me. I was quite taken with it and wanted to show a Northern Renaissance painting that also showed a great deal of detail. I thought it was interesting to look at two artists from such different time periods sort of dealing with a similar issue, but in different ways. Art historians are trained with slide comparisons, and it is ingrained in me. It was probably foolish of me to go off on a tangent about Telephone Booths. I just really liked it.

I see E05 as a green scent with three stages. I don't see any of the stages as having a wide variety of notes. In one of my earlier posts I compared it to Jubilation XXV, with XXV as sort of an opposite. To my nose, XXV is very detailed, with different notes flying in like little light rays from different directions. When I smell S05, I find it more minimal. In an earlier post, I compared it to this lovely still life:

Paul R. Keysar - Cucumber Slices
http://www.paulkeysar.com/Cucumber-Slices-Painting.php

I don't get anything menacing, but I am almost positive there are notes I just don't smell. I don't get anything remotely skanky in Jicky.
Reply
Reply
post #60 of 128
10/23/12 at 6:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redneck Perfumisto View Post

I think you're right that they're not all transparent. I *personally* don't smell them all as transparent by any means.

1: Prada Infusion d'Iris - somewhat transparent (Chandler said luminous - maybe soft white & yellow - translucent?)

2: Mugler Cologne - well, colognes are all somewhat transparent, so maybe, but not totally. Sorta see-through.

3: L'Etrog - citrus - well - kinda transparent to MY nose (all light to me - never dark or opaque - unlike others)

4: Yuzu Rouge - citrus - I think definitely transparent to me

5: S01E05 - to me, white like latex paint or dust. Maybe not transparent but just barely opaque white.

So transparent isn't really the right word, but they're all light in some way. Whether it's clear, transparent, translucent, or white, they're all, what I might call, pale.

There is a real similarity to all these scents. They may be very good breads, but they're all some kind of white bread. A couple of them feel like the Japanese sandwiches with the crust carefully removed. Only the amazing ham and cheese and Japanese mayo saves those damn things. When I'm done with them, my American and European heritages are so crust-craving, we want to eat the nearest brown paper. That's how this selection leaves me. I feel like I want to hose down with Carven Homme or an A*Men flanker. Is that Baroque? Whatever! I'm hungry for REAL OLFACTORY FOOD. Heck - even an Aqua Slider.

I don't feel like I'm gettin' my red meat, carrots, gravy, and brownies. Maybe we need some nice, sharp, chypre cheese. If we have to go L'Arquiste, then a good crusty spiced bread like Anima Dulcis is what I'm cravin'. Not lemonade like L'Etrog!

Sorry - I've got some crusty 3-cheese bread that needs prevention of staleness. Gotta run!

I think what we could say about the Untitleds is that they have all been crafted with a light hand -- i.e. there is a common characteristic of balance and an absence of the kind of overdose that characterizes Chanel No. 5, for example. That seems to be the aesthetic Chandler Burr is bringing to the series so far. On the other hand, I've always had a penchant for the complexity of the feminine fragrances of the 70's and 80's (think Armani by Giorgio Armani, Y by YSL, Coco by Chanel) not just Chypres, but fragrances with long lists of "notes", definitely Baroque. But it can be interesting to switch things up and try something new and different as well. I like having a spirit-guide, so to speak.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

Features on Basenotes

Greatest Hits: Annick Menardo
Basenotes Reader Awards 2013 - Finalists Announced.
Petals Falling From The Sky - A Report From The Cote d'Azur's Bataille De Fleurs