Just got my box ((tearing it open))
post #61 of 128
10/23/12 at 6:45am
Basenotes › Basenotes Forums › Fragrance Discussion › Fragrance Industry and General Fragrance Discussion › Chandler Burr Untitled S01E05
Recent Reviews
-
When people talk about generic fragrances smelling like shampoo I always thought that was just a figure of speech until I came across Usher. Talking about a cheap smell synthetic mess. There's...
-
After reading some of the reviews on here I'm scratching my head on a couple of them. In particular the ones that call this a sweet fragrance. This isn't a sweet fragrance and the notes will tell...
-
I have two bottles of Halston 101 , One is up on ebay right now and is 1.7 ounce cologne splash. The other will go up on ebay next week, UNLESS someone here makes me an offer, It has been... -
This is a very mysterious fragrance for me. Definitively oriental, animalistic and erotic. I believe this fragrance suits brunettes rather than blonds. I wear it with light silk scarf in the...
-
This fragrance to me is as a perfectly well- mannered gentlemen who has a character and personality but who also is very aware of his surrounding and does not want to offend anyone. Thus he keeps...
Chandler Burr Untitled S01E05 - Page 2
post #62 of 128
10/23/12 at 7:54am
- PerfumePorMoi
- offline
- Gender:
- 89 Posts. Joined 3/2008
- Select All Posts By This User
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogalal 
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.
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.
This is beginning to not sound like my kind of thing at all (at least to wear), but your "you have to embrace the poop to appreciate Jicky's beauty" is brilliant and will have me giggling all day whenever I think of it. Spot. On.
post #63 of 128
10/23/12 at 9:58pm
post #64 of 128
10/24/12 at 4:43am
- chandlerburr
- offline
- Gender:
- 24 Posts. Joined 1/2008
- Select All Posts By This User
post #65 of 128
10/24/12 at 9:45pm
- L'Homme Blanc Individuel
- offline
- Gender:
- 1,855 Posts. Joined 7/2012
- Location: Portland, OR
- Select All Posts By This User
On first sniff I am forced to close my eyes, not because the scent is strong, but rather because it is so soft and gentle that I want to focus all of my attention on it.
An hour later, with eyes closed, my mind wanders and I find myself in a grassy field. It's a perfect spring day, and I am on my back, lying on a dry patch of otherwise damp grass. There are dandelions everywhere, and the sun is shining. And then something strange happens. Am I... smelling... lunch?
Do I smell a fast-food burger wrapper? The yellowness of this scent reminds me of being a kid and getting a McDonalds burger, wrapped in yellow paper with their logo all over it. Is it a hint of mustard that I'm smelling?!? A hint of mustard and pickles? Onion? I can't believe I'm having that thought, but now I can't stop from thinking about it. I'm definitely smelling something foodie in here, somewhere.
This smells more feminine than masculine, yet something keeps it from truly being feminine. I smell the grass and the dampness, yet it has a sunny disposition and I smell flowers... but there's something else too. Something. But what?
- - - Updated - - -
Boy do I get excellent longevity from E05. 14 hours later, it was still there, which really surprised me since it was soft from the start. I am so impressed by the contrast of the gentle nature of this scent and the outstanding longevity. I would have never expected that.
An hour later, with eyes closed, my mind wanders and I find myself in a grassy field. It's a perfect spring day, and I am on my back, lying on a dry patch of otherwise damp grass. There are dandelions everywhere, and the sun is shining. And then something strange happens. Am I... smelling... lunch?
Do I smell a fast-food burger wrapper? The yellowness of this scent reminds me of being a kid and getting a McDonalds burger, wrapped in yellow paper with their logo all over it. Is it a hint of mustard that I'm smelling?!? A hint of mustard and pickles? Onion? I can't believe I'm having that thought, but now I can't stop from thinking about it. I'm definitely smelling something foodie in here, somewhere.
This smells more feminine than masculine, yet something keeps it from truly being feminine. I smell the grass and the dampness, yet it has a sunny disposition and I smell flowers... but there's something else too. Something. But what?
- - - Updated - - -
Boy do I get excellent longevity from E05. 14 hours later, it was still there, which really surprised me since it was soft from the start. I am so impressed by the contrast of the gentle nature of this scent and the outstanding longevity. I would have never expected that.
post #66 of 128
10/26/12 at 7:01pm
- rogalal
- offline
- Gender:
- 3,262 Posts. Joined 1/2009
- Location: Berkeley, California
- Select All Posts By This User
Quote:
Originally Posted by L'Homme Blanc Individuel
A hint of mustard and pickles? Onion? I can't believe I'm having that thought, but now I can't stop from thinking about it.
A hint of mustard and pickles? Onion? I can't believe I'm having that thought, but now I can't stop from thinking about it.
I wore EO5 again today with this in mind. I think the pickle association is probably coming from the dill. And today I swear I smell a touch of fennel, which is combining with the bile undertones of the tomato leaf to smell an awful lot like onion breath.
This actually gave me a lot to think about. On a larger scale, I've always seen perfume as both art and craft. Art in the sense that it's interpretable and craft in the sense that there's a right way and a wrong way to do it. In my mind, one of the principle points of perfumery is to create something that smells good, at least to someone. And when I've smelled scents like EO5 in the past, I've usually considered them failures because they have parts that smell bad. As an example, I remember writing scathing things about Varvatos Artisan because it had this same bile tomato undercurrent mixing with fennel (though it also had a very subtle fecal quality that made the dark undertones smell to me like flu diarrhea *shudder* ).
I can honestly say that it had never even occurred to me until today that a perfumer would knowingly include disgusting undertones like these in their perfumes,intentionally and on purpose. I had always considered them a failure on the perfumer's part, not adequately masking the gross bits.
It seems like Chandler may be saying that it's the intentional balance between the tasty bits and the gross bits (symbolizing dark vs light) that he finds compelling and artful about EO5 (using Jicky as an acceptable root for the idea). And I find that fascinating. Somehow, I've accepted civet and castoreum and other bad smells as artful, but modern "niche" gross smells like the onions here or the pee in Guerlain's Pamplelune I've never even considered in the same light.
post #67 of 128
10/26/12 at 8:00pm
- Birdboy48
- offline
- Gender:
- 837 Posts. Joined 7/2011
- Location: Bend Oregon USA
- Select All Posts By This User
Just got my sample today ( thanks again Red ! ) and am only about a half-hour into it. I've made a point NOT to read what others have said up till now, so only an initial impression here...
And after four stout sprays on the back of my hand, my initial impression is......Yet another Chandler-style lightweight, skin-scent sort of fragrances.
I'm enjoying the project, and hope to stick with it, and will be wearing this again over the coming days and forming more impressions. I know Chandler would not have picked it if it didn't have something worthy to say. But I'll have to admit that my initial thought was...Am I simply going to have to accept the fact that all of his selections are going to fall within this particular style of fragrance ?
If Chandler hopes to serve the perfume consumer, and the wide world of scent with what I believe he intends as an educational project, it would seem important to make selections that cover the full range of available perfume strengths and styles.
Like....Something for us red wine drinking meat-eaters. Those who enjoy a good bowl of hot chili, you know ?
Not that I'm grumbling....but....well....maybe just a little.
.
And after four stout sprays on the back of my hand, my initial impression is......Yet another Chandler-style lightweight, skin-scent sort of fragrances.
I'm enjoying the project, and hope to stick with it, and will be wearing this again over the coming days and forming more impressions. I know Chandler would not have picked it if it didn't have something worthy to say. But I'll have to admit that my initial thought was...Am I simply going to have to accept the fact that all of his selections are going to fall within this particular style of fragrance ?
If Chandler hopes to serve the perfume consumer, and the wide world of scent with what I believe he intends as an educational project, it would seem important to make selections that cover the full range of available perfume strengths and styles.
Like....Something for us red wine drinking meat-eaters. Those who enjoy a good bowl of hot chili, you know ?
Not that I'm grumbling....but....well....maybe just a little.
.
- Redneck Perfumisto
- offline
- Gender:
- Trader Feedback: +38
- Loving C(h)oco Noir!
-
- 10,235 Posts. Joined 2/2008
- Location: Spiritually, Kansas
- Select All Posts By This User
Before it's too late, I wanted to leave my thought about the identity of S01E05:
70ec2dfefaa54e85cb38105b72a9584e0b15e605e6547d40c9 1cbee1812b1330
It's not identical to my sample, but the differences are comparable to what I observed with S01E01. Nothing else was ever a serious contender for S01E05, as far as things I've sniffed.
L'HBI - your observations about both specific condiments and longevity are, in fact, two of the first things I noticed about the scent I think this is.
70ec2dfefaa54e85cb38105b72a9584e0b15e605e6547d40c9 1cbee1812b1330
It's not identical to my sample, but the differences are comparable to what I observed with S01E01. Nothing else was ever a serious contender for S01E05, as far as things I've sniffed.
L'HBI - your observations about both specific condiments and longevity are, in fact, two of the first things I noticed about the scent I think this is.
post #69 of 128
10/27/12 at 11:24am
- rogalal
- offline
- Gender:
- 3,262 Posts. Joined 1/2009
- Location: Berkeley, California
- Select All Posts By This User
Red, for the life of me, I don't have any idea how to decode your guesses... 
If we're doing this, my initial guess was XXXXXXXXXX, but it turned out to be wrong. XXXXXXXXX has more citrus up top for brightness and balance and instead of grossing up the dark spaces between the vines with onion, it fills themin with wisps of cassis smoke. Much like how Yuzu Rouge gave me a better appreciation for Green Green Green and Green, EO5 has made me appreciate XXXXXXXXXX more.
The talk at our SF Sniff was that people thought it was .- -- .- --.. .. -. --. .-. . . -. which I haven't smelled. Our Barneys didn't have it, so I have no idea, though the reviews of said guess sound nothing like what we're smelling here, so I'm figuring that's probably wrong too.
If we're doing this, my initial guess was XXXXXXXXXX, but it turned out to be wrong. XXXXXXXXX has more citrus up top for brightness and balance and instead of grossing up the dark spaces between the vines with onion, it fills themin with wisps of cassis smoke. Much like how Yuzu Rouge gave me a better appreciation for Green Green Green and Green, EO5 has made me appreciate XXXXXXXXXX more.
The talk at our SF Sniff was that people thought it was .- -- .- --.. .. -. --. .-. . . -. which I haven't smelled. Our Barneys didn't have it, so I have no idea, though the reviews of said guess sound nothing like what we're smelling here, so I'm figuring that's probably wrong too.
- Redneck Perfumisto
- offline
- Gender:
- Trader Feedback: +38
- Loving C(h)oco Noir!
-
- 10,235 Posts. Joined 2/2008
- Location: Spiritually, Kansas
- Select All Posts By This User
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogalal
Red, for the life of me, I don't have any idea how to decode your guesses...
Red, for the life of me, I don't have any idea how to decode your guesses...
Actually, it should be next to impossible. If it's not, your money in the bank is in deep civet, castoreum, and other "poopy notes".
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogalal
If we're doing this, my initial guess was XXXXXXXXXX, but it turned out to be wrong. XXXXXXXXX has more citrus up top for brightness and balance and instead of grossing up the dark spaces between the vines with onion, it fills themin with wisps of cassis smoke. Much like how Yuzu Rouge gave me a better appreciation for Green Green Green and Green, EO5 has made me appreciate XXXXXXXXXX more.
If we're doing this, my initial guess was XXXXXXXXXX, but it turned out to be wrong. XXXXXXXXX has more citrus up top for brightness and balance and instead of grossing up the dark spaces between the vines with onion, it fills themin with wisps of cassis smoke. Much like how Yuzu Rouge gave me a better appreciation for Green Green Green and Green, EO5 has made me appreciate XXXXXXXXXX more.
I'm pretty sure my guess is right, but if it is, then I'm already smelling a touch of reformulation.
If anything, this project has taught me just how much of a lie the *LABEL ITSELF* is - no matter what associations we bring to the table. Labels don't just distort our judgement - they actually lie about the constancy of content, simply by doing their legitimate job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogalal
The talk at our SF Sniff was that people thought it was .- -- .- --.. .. -. --. .-. . . -. which I haven't smelled. Our Barneys didn't have it, so I have no idea, though the reviews of said guess sound nothing like what we're smelling here, so I'm figuring that's probably wrong too.
The talk at our SF Sniff was that people thought it was .- -- .- --.. .. -. --. .-. . . -. which I haven't smelled. Our Barneys didn't have it, so I have no idea, though the reviews of said guess sound nothing like what we're smelling here, so I'm figuring that's probably wrong too.
LOL - I tell you, it ain't .- -- .- --.. .. -. --. .-. . . -. !!! That much I'm sure of!!!
post #71 of 128
10/27/12 at 3:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redneck Perfumisto
If anything, this project has taught me just how much of a lie the *LABEL ITSELF* is - no matter what associations we bring to the table. Labels don't just distort our judgement - they actually lie about the constancy of content, simply by doing their legitimate job.
If anything, this project has taught me just how much of a lie the *LABEL ITSELF* is - no matter what associations we bring to the table. Labels don't just distort our judgement - they actually lie about the constancy of content, simply by doing their legitimate job.
Sorry to barge in like this, but I was wondering what you mean by this, Red? It intrigues me
- Redneck Perfumisto
- offline
- Gender:
- Trader Feedback: +38
- Loving C(h)oco Noir!
-
- 10,235 Posts. Joined 2/2008
- Location: Spiritually, Kansas
- Select All Posts By This User
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irina
Sorry to barge in like this, but I was wondering what you mean by this, Red? It intrigues me
Sorry to barge in like this, but I was wondering what you mean by this, Red? It intrigues me
It's a fine point, but I guess I come at this from a software perspective - where version is everything. There is a tendency in fragrance for us to all coalesce in comfort around a myth - the idea that a fragrance remains constant - or even *should* remain constant. We wouldn't even think of such a thing in software. Without a version, the user is at a disadvantage, and people who don't openly and easily advertise version are typically hiding something. Chanel no. 5.212.13 for American Market, lot number on the bottom. [Kinda takes away some of the charm, I'll admit, and that's why I happily go along with the sweet lies of the fragrance world. Perfume is not software, thank G_d!]
But even more than that, the idea of constancy prevents us from thinking about the virtue of improvement. (Vintage lovers may now borrow l'MdM's fainting couch!
) In software, we *expect* improvement. Things that hold back improvement - that delay progress - are all suspect. In fragrance, it's the opposite. We fear lazy and sneaky change, not brave and honorable stagnation.I've become a full-fledged modernist. I want the *next* brilliant fragrance, and I'm willing to trade old loves for new thrills!
post #73 of 128
10/27/12 at 6:19pm
- rogalal
- offline
- Gender:
- 3,262 Posts. Joined 1/2009
- Location: Berkeley, California
- Select All Posts By This User
Red, I'm going to take your argument one step further and say that I think most of us here are at the evolutionary equivalent of cowering and sacrificing a virgin to the angry sky gods when we hear thunder. We're really into perfume, but we really have no idea about how it's really made, the business side, and the effects of time and storage, etc. We've set up IFRA and reformulation as all-purpose boogeymen that we blame whenever we encounter something we don't understand like old juice versus new juice, deteriorated topnotes, a scent not matching our memories of it, etc. And doing that is just about as dumb as sacrificing a virgin to make the rain stop.
Check out this article from Luca Turin: http://doublebasenotes.blogspot.com/...uca-turin.html
where he talks about receiving a shipment of Guerlains fresh from the factory and how he'd never really believed in, until then, the idea that perfumes drastically change in their first 6 months. This goes a long way to explain the Mugler Cologne questions, and could also have a hand in the discrepancies you're finding now.
Check out this article from Luca Turin: http://doublebasenotes.blogspot.com/...uca-turin.html
where he talks about receiving a shipment of Guerlains fresh from the factory and how he'd never really believed in, until then, the idea that perfumes drastically change in their first 6 months. This goes a long way to explain the Mugler Cologne questions, and could also have a hand in the discrepancies you're finding now.
- Redneck Perfumisto
- offline
- Gender:
- Trader Feedback: +38
- Loving C(h)oco Noir!
-
- 10,235 Posts. Joined 2/2008
- Location: Spiritually, Kansas
- Select All Posts By This User
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogalal
Red, I'm going to take your argument one step further and say that I think most of us here are at the evolutionary equivalent of cowering and sacrificing a virgin to the angry sky gods when we hear thunder. We're really into perfume, but we really have no idea about how it's really made, the business side, and the effects of time and storage, etc. We've set up IFRA and reformulation as all-purpose boogeymen that we blame whenever we encounter something we don't understand like old juice versus new juice, deteriorated topnotes, a scent not matching our memories of it, etc. And doing that is just about as dumb as sacrificing a virgin to make the rain stop.
Check out this article from Luca Turin: http://doublebasenotes.blogspot.com/...uca-turin.html
where he talks about receiving a shipment of Guerlains fresh from the factory and how he'd never really believed in, until then, the idea that perfumes drastically change in their first 6 months. This goes a long way to explain the Mugler Cologne questions, and could also have a hand in the discrepancies you're finding now.
Red, I'm going to take your argument one step further and say that I think most of us here are at the evolutionary equivalent of cowering and sacrificing a virgin to the angry sky gods when we hear thunder. We're really into perfume, but we really have no idea about how it's really made, the business side, and the effects of time and storage, etc. We've set up IFRA and reformulation as all-purpose boogeymen that we blame whenever we encounter something we don't understand like old juice versus new juice, deteriorated topnotes, a scent not matching our memories of it, etc. And doing that is just about as dumb as sacrificing a virgin to make the rain stop.
Check out this article from Luca Turin: http://doublebasenotes.blogspot.com/...uca-turin.html
where he talks about receiving a shipment of Guerlains fresh from the factory and how he'd never really believed in, until then, the idea that perfumes drastically change in their first 6 months. This goes a long way to explain the Mugler Cologne questions, and could also have a hand in the discrepancies you're finding now.
Totally! I've often referred to ourselves as a kind of cargo cult of the industry, and both your and Luca's comments reassure me that I wasn't smoking some of our entheogens when I said it!
But I think there is an alternative, and kinder way of looking at us: like the people of Niihau - the forbidden Hawaiian island. The technological peoples of the industry protect us from the silly, unromantic aspects of fragrance, so that we can enjoy fragrance as art, religion, and hedonic pleasure. Some may call us primitive, but I have learned to embrace that quality - to value it. It is our duty, in turn, to protect the fragrance culture for posterity and history, and not delve too deeply into the sordid details of technological modernity which surround us. Yes, they study us, and sometimes ask us silly questions. But we should take that as a compliment. Perhaps we did something good in our past lives, and our reward is to be freed from the sordid duties of even having to make our own religious potions.
Sometimes, a few of us leave the preserve, to see what wonders exist out in the modern, technological world.
Sometimes, a few of us come back.
post #75 of 128
10/28/12 at 7:42am
- PerfumePorMoi
- offline
- Gender:
- 89 Posts. Joined 3/2008
- Select All Posts By This User
Bottle arrived last night. Been wearing all morning.
First thought that popped into my head: "Oh, no, not another skinny-minny supermodel of a scent. Feed this thing a steak dinner!"
It's not unpleasant, it's just that, to my nose, there's no "there there." If it wafted by me at a party, I wouldn't give it a second thought, much less stop the wearer and ask about it.
But to honor Perfume Addict's initial suggestion, I'll give this a go:
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?
It makes me feel like I'm smelling what a world scrubbed totally clean of any human presence would smell like, a world in which all sensual equations are made up exclusively of the very most basic and inoffensive elements of the natural world. No flowers, no animal skank, no hot breath or slow decay. Instead: rock, dirt, plant, water, all of it deliberately engineered in a lab.
I would not wear it.
If I did, I think most people would welcome the relief from my usual floriental sillage monsters and tell me that, for once, I smell "clean," as non-threatening and reassuring as a white Calvin Klein sheath dress in a room full of Vivienne Westwood.
2. In what way would you describe this fragrance as less? Is it minimalist?
Minimalist for sure--it hints, it doesn't shout. It doesn't even speak because it has no "chew."
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?
If there is anything sensual about this scent, perhaps it lies in its brief whiff of pepper/tomato/earth. But, again, the prevailing cologne-like structure keeps this element at arm's length for me, almost as if I'm sniffing it through glass.
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?
See 1. Above. It doesn't make me think of any one thing. Its literal, photo realistic aspect is its quality of smelling like it was deliberately created in a lab to evoke a specific world view. That's the only way I can describe it at this point.
First thought that popped into my head: "Oh, no, not another skinny-minny supermodel of a scent. Feed this thing a steak dinner!"
It's not unpleasant, it's just that, to my nose, there's no "there there." If it wafted by me at a party, I wouldn't give it a second thought, much less stop the wearer and ask about it.
But to honor Perfume Addict's initial suggestion, I'll give this a go:
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?
It makes me feel like I'm smelling what a world scrubbed totally clean of any human presence would smell like, a world in which all sensual equations are made up exclusively of the very most basic and inoffensive elements of the natural world. No flowers, no animal skank, no hot breath or slow decay. Instead: rock, dirt, plant, water, all of it deliberately engineered in a lab.
I would not wear it.
If I did, I think most people would welcome the relief from my usual floriental sillage monsters and tell me that, for once, I smell "clean," as non-threatening and reassuring as a white Calvin Klein sheath dress in a room full of Vivienne Westwood.
2. In what way would you describe this fragrance as less? Is it minimalist?
Minimalist for sure--it hints, it doesn't shout. It doesn't even speak because it has no "chew."
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?
If there is anything sensual about this scent, perhaps it lies in its brief whiff of pepper/tomato/earth. But, again, the prevailing cologne-like structure keeps this element at arm's length for me, almost as if I'm sniffing it through glass.
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?
See 1. Above. It doesn't make me think of any one thing. Its literal, photo realistic aspect is its quality of smelling like it was deliberately created in a lab to evoke a specific world view. That's the only way I can describe it at this point.
post #76 of 128
10/28/12 at 11:39pm
- rogalal
- offline
- Gender:
- 3,262 Posts. Joined 1/2009
- Location: Berkeley, California
- Select All Posts By This User
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeperez23
Just got my box ((tearing it open))
Just got my box ((tearing it open))
OK, it's been a week... Thoughts? I know you hate those undertones in other tomato leaf perfumes - I'm really curious how you liked EO5.
- - - Updated - - -
My sample from Red just arrived (thank you!). Since I had stolen some from Rotto in the mean time, I don't really need it. If anyone is interested in smelling this, please let me know. Yes, I know the reveal is in a couple of days, but someone out there (USA please) must be curious, even if it happens after we know what it is...
post #77 of 128
10/31/12 at 12:34am
Ok, Babsvs checking in from the post-Sandy Ct shoreline, very lucky and grateful. I never lost power and only lost Comcast for about 3 hours. 87% of my town is without power, so I am very blessed.
For anyone familiar with CT, it appears that the area south of Route 1 (the Post Road) was hit hard by the surging Sound. We had more of a wind event than a rain event, and on Monday from 2 PM until about 10 PM we had very strong wind with gusts to 85 mph. Awful. I looked up at my living room window (SE facing) and realized that the size of the reflection of a lamp was changing. Let's just say that I've never gone through a roll of masking tape so quickly.
At first I tried to figure out which of my fragrances might be calming. I was about ready for the Caldey Island Lavender, but got a migraine, probably from the extremely low barometric pressure, not to mention the Armageddon-like winds.
I hope other Easterners will check in and let us know you are ok.
For anyone familiar with CT, it appears that the area south of Route 1 (the Post Road) was hit hard by the surging Sound. We had more of a wind event than a rain event, and on Monday from 2 PM until about 10 PM we had very strong wind with gusts to 85 mph. Awful. I looked up at my living room window (SE facing) and realized that the size of the reflection of a lamp was changing. Let's just say that I've never gone through a roll of masking tape so quickly.
At first I tried to figure out which of my fragrances might be calming. I was about ready for the Caldey Island Lavender, but got a migraine, probably from the extremely low barometric pressure, not to mention the Armageddon-like winds.
I hope other Easterners will check in and let us know you are ok.
post #78 of 128
10/31/12 at 12:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babsvs
Ok, Babsvs checking in from the post-Sandy Ct shoreline, very lucky and grateful. I never lost power and only lost Comcast for about 3 hours. 87% of my town is without power, so I am very blessed.
For anyone familiar with CT, it appears that the area south of Route 1 (the Post Road) was hit hard by the surging Sound. We had more of a wind event than a rain event, and on Monday from 2 PM until about 10 PM we had very strong wind with gusts to 85 mph. Awful. I looked up at my living room window (SE facing) and realized that the size of the reflection of a lamp was changing. Let's just say that I've never gone through a roll of masking tape so quickly.
At first I tried to figure out which of my fragrances might be calming. I was about ready for the Caldey Island Lavender, but got a migraine, probably from the extremely low barometric pressure, not to mention the Armageddon-like winds.
I hope other Easterners will check in and let us know you are ok.
Ok, Babsvs checking in from the post-Sandy Ct shoreline, very lucky and grateful. I never lost power and only lost Comcast for about 3 hours. 87% of my town is without power, so I am very blessed.
For anyone familiar with CT, it appears that the area south of Route 1 (the Post Road) was hit hard by the surging Sound. We had more of a wind event than a rain event, and on Monday from 2 PM until about 10 PM we had very strong wind with gusts to 85 mph. Awful. I looked up at my living room window (SE facing) and realized that the size of the reflection of a lamp was changing. Let's just say that I've never gone through a roll of masking tape so quickly.
At first I tried to figure out which of my fragrances might be calming. I was about ready for the Caldey Island Lavender, but got a migraine, probably from the extremely low barometric pressure, not to mention the Armageddon-like winds.
I hope other Easterners will check in and let us know you are ok.
Glad to hear you're okay. Mark also posted on FB that he and his family were ok too.
*hugs*
post #79 of 128
10/31/12 at 7:53pm
- Somerville Metro Man
- offline
- Gender:
- 4,551 Posts. Joined 2/2008
- Location: Poolesville, MD
- Select All Posts By This User
Hi everyone we are all ok here in Poodlesville. A few lost shingles and a few broken trees but otherwise unscathed.
With the storm bearinbg down on our area Chandler and i taped the reveal over the weekend so we would make sure it was released today.
Here is the link to it
http://www.cafleurebon.com/mark-behn...series-s01e05/
I don't think the reveal will surprise many of you but I thought Chandler's comments on photorealistic perfume and what makes a great collection were pretty interesting.
With the storm bearinbg down on our area Chandler and i taped the reveal over the weekend so we would make sure it was released today.
Here is the link to it
http://www.cafleurebon.com/mark-behn...series-s01e05/
I don't think the reveal will surprise many of you but I thought Chandler's comments on photorealistic perfume and what makes a great collection were pretty interesting.
post #80 of 128
11/1/12 at 1:46am
- SculptureOfSoul
- offline
- Gender:
- 8,874 Posts. Joined 7/2005
- Select All Posts By This User
I have to thank RP for the sample, but am once again disappointed in the fragrance. I did sniff it on a couple of occasions, but couldn't even muster the energy to join in the discussion here. It's not that it's a terrible fragrance, but it's more of the same from this project: whispy, pale, transparent. Loads of modern weightless musks. Filaments and sparkle.
If the point of this project is to help us to appreciate perfume as art, why keep showing us such a small subsection of perfume? If you wanted to introduce someone to music, or to expand their musical horizons, would you have them listen to nothing but say, 19th century string quartets? To share your appreciation for music as a whole, wouldn't you want to go to expose them to African tribal music, pieces from the various classical eras, an offering or two from the varieties of jazz, some modern pop, electronic, heavy metal, etc?
I just don't understand the point of this anymore. Chandler chastises us for talking about scents in a specific, sometimes narrow manner (ie discussing notes), but continues to choose fragrances that all share the same weight, texture and density. We've at least tried to expand our method of discussion; will Chandler expand the diversity in his selections?
I hope so, but I doubt it. Further, I see a lot of the commentary tends to reflect the original description by Chandler. There has been a lot of excellent commentary, and I don't mean to discount that at all, but I think people might be afraid to fully express opinions contrary to Chandler's for a multitude of reasons (and not necessarily consciously doing so). Or, when such opinions are expressed, they are always compared/contrasted to Chandler's original - thus not growing organically on their own, but always attached to the original description - like a remora fish attached to a shark.
My question to all: Do you feel like you are learning or expanding your horizons via this project? Do you feel you are learning to more deeply embrace your own subjective experience (and descrption) of the scent?
From my observations, it seems that the answer to the latter question in most cases would actually be no. We're discussing things via answering a series of questions, or trying to see how it does or does not fit into the frame that Chandler has created for us.
Maybe I was never the target audience for this project. Maybe I misunderstood it from the start. But, from where I'm sitting, it's not achieving its intentions.
If the point of this project is to help us to appreciate perfume as art, why keep showing us such a small subsection of perfume? If you wanted to introduce someone to music, or to expand their musical horizons, would you have them listen to nothing but say, 19th century string quartets? To share your appreciation for music as a whole, wouldn't you want to go to expose them to African tribal music, pieces from the various classical eras, an offering or two from the varieties of jazz, some modern pop, electronic, heavy metal, etc?
I just don't understand the point of this anymore. Chandler chastises us for talking about scents in a specific, sometimes narrow manner (ie discussing notes), but continues to choose fragrances that all share the same weight, texture and density. We've at least tried to expand our method of discussion; will Chandler expand the diversity in his selections?
I hope so, but I doubt it. Further, I see a lot of the commentary tends to reflect the original description by Chandler. There has been a lot of excellent commentary, and I don't mean to discount that at all, but I think people might be afraid to fully express opinions contrary to Chandler's for a multitude of reasons (and not necessarily consciously doing so). Or, when such opinions are expressed, they are always compared/contrasted to Chandler's original - thus not growing organically on their own, but always attached to the original description - like a remora fish attached to a shark.
My question to all: Do you feel like you are learning or expanding your horizons via this project? Do you feel you are learning to more deeply embrace your own subjective experience (and descrption) of the scent?
From my observations, it seems that the answer to the latter question in most cases would actually be no. We're discussing things via answering a series of questions, or trying to see how it does or does not fit into the frame that Chandler has created for us.
Maybe I was never the target audience for this project. Maybe I misunderstood it from the start. But, from where I'm sitting, it's not achieving its intentions.
post #81 of 128
11/1/12 at 5:53am
Thank you Mark for the video, it was interesting to hear CB talking about photo realism. I couldn't understand the names of the artists he was referring to: would someone be so kind and put those into writing for me? Thank you in advance.
@SoS: I believe that topic was brought up before and the conclusion was, as far as I understood it, that CB only presents his taste of olfactory art. Also in the video the reason behind the series becomes pretty obvious as the series being a PR exercise for the upcoming MAD exposition. Which btw seems really promising, I wonder if the catalogue will include samples of the perfumes and if the perfumes that are presented will be fresh or vintage.
Anyways as far as this project goes, I really enjoyed taking part together with you guys, even when I could only join the blind sniff once. It made me feel connected and imho it doesn't get more subjective than that I am also grateful for the great discussions on art related to fragrance, really educating!
Another thing that I feel that could be a potential party pooper in this whole blind sniff thing is the presence of the modern macro musks in all presented compositions. Many many people are anosmic to them, so for those that can't smell them the fun is really a lot less. I saw this in the BN blind sniffs as well, it can make a huge difference.
Bottom line, I think blind sniffing of any fragrance is a wonderful journey and I would urge those that can't get their rock on with CB's taste to take part in the BN's blind sniffs. There mentioning of notes is even encouraged because of the guessing game, but as far as I understood, there is enough room to give a blind sniff your own twist.
SPOILER ALERT!!!
p.s. Diptyque is one of my favorite houses so I'll be totally checking out EdLierre!
@SoS: I believe that topic was brought up before and the conclusion was, as far as I understood it, that CB only presents his taste of olfactory art. Also in the video the reason behind the series becomes pretty obvious as the series being a PR exercise for the upcoming MAD exposition. Which btw seems really promising, I wonder if the catalogue will include samples of the perfumes and if the perfumes that are presented will be fresh or vintage.
Anyways as far as this project goes, I really enjoyed taking part together with you guys, even when I could only join the blind sniff once. It made me feel connected and imho it doesn't get more subjective than that
I am also grateful for the great discussions on art related to fragrance, really educating!Another thing that I feel that could be a potential party pooper in this whole blind sniff thing is the presence of the modern macro musks in all presented compositions. Many many people are anosmic to them, so for those that can't smell them the fun is really a lot less. I saw this in the BN blind sniffs as well, it can make a huge difference.
Bottom line, I think blind sniffing of any fragrance is a wonderful journey and I would urge those that can't get their rock on with CB's taste to take part in the BN's blind sniffs. There mentioning of notes is even encouraged because of the guessing game, but as far as I understood, there is enough room to give a blind sniff your own twist.
SPOILER ALERT!!!
p.s. Diptyque is one of my favorite houses so I'll be totally checking out EdLierre!
post #82 of 128
11/1/12 at 10:43am
- rogalal
- offline
- Gender:
- 3,262 Posts. Joined 1/2009
- Location: Berkeley, California
- Select All Posts By This User
OK, so I guess I'm having my Mugler Cologne moment. My first guess for EO5 was Eau de Lierre, but the EO5 sample smelled like a bunch of stuff was missing compared to my old Diptyque sample. For one, the older Diptyque sample clearly had citrus, both a subtle bergamot chypre topnote, as well as a zingy lemon. There was also a very clear cassis note (the same funky dark cassis from L'Ombre Dans L'Eau). In my estimation, EO5 was a realistic snapshot of a bunch of vines climbing up a wall - nothing but greens and blacks and varying shades in between, while Eau De Lierre (in an older sample) was the kitchen in a cottage - there was a big open window and ivy covering the outside wall, its smell pouring in and melding with the smell of cassis syrup simmering on the stove and freshly cut lemons on the table. Basically, the "older" Lierre was much more fleshed out. Still photorealistic, but a wider view.
OK then....
OK then....
post #83 of 128
11/1/12 at 11:24am
- PerfumePorMoi
- offline
- Gender:
- 89 Posts. Joined 3/2008
- Select All Posts By This User
post #84 of 128
11/1/12 at 1:45pm
- Somerville Metro Man
- offline
- Gender:
- 4,551 Posts. Joined 2/2008
- Location: Poolesville, MD
- Select All Posts By This User
@Sculpture of Soul I don't think the Untitled Series is as cynical a form of promotion of The Art of Scent exhibit as your words seem to indicate. Do they have the opportunity to promote each other, yes. My impression is Chandler is really trying to get people to examine a fragrance on its own merits and based on sales I think he is succeeding. Within the small community of us who are actually talking about it I also thinik it has the opportunity to succeed in a different way. I know for myself I am spending much more time examining each entry and I am using a different lens to evaluate what I am experiencing. Chandler definitely has a style of fragrance he prefers and I expect E06 will be along those lines. I didn't get the chance to ask him what he has against chypres and orientals but I will eventually. Unless E06 is one.
@Irina the same applied to those who are red/green color blind when it comes to appreciating visual art, imagine the frustration when someone talks about the vibrant red of something and you don't see it. The anosmia to macrocyclic musks also hinders a full appreciation of a fragrance which contains them and more problematic is many people who are anosmic probably have no idea that they aren't able to smell what everyone else says they smell, once again it must be very frustrating. I do know that the plan is for the catalog of the exhibit to contain a sample of each fragrance in the show. The accompanying text will also contain Chandler's description of each fragrance and the "school" of fragrance it belongs to. Once I get my hands on the finished product that is something I am looking forward to talking about on Basenotes because as I've said many times I believe it will provide a starting point for us to evolve a continuing discussion of Olfactory Art.
@rogalal I am very glad you are having your Mugler Moment. Have you been able to compare them side-by-side? I would be very interested to hear your impressions in that instance.
@Perfume pour Moi I can see where this could be irritating. As I mentioned in the reveal I felt like it was an olfactory snapshot and that bit of artistry is something to be admired in my opinion. That doesn't mean I reach for this a lot but there are days I want to feel like a brick wall covered in ivy.
@Irina the same applied to those who are red/green color blind when it comes to appreciating visual art, imagine the frustration when someone talks about the vibrant red of something and you don't see it. The anosmia to macrocyclic musks also hinders a full appreciation of a fragrance which contains them and more problematic is many people who are anosmic probably have no idea that they aren't able to smell what everyone else says they smell, once again it must be very frustrating. I do know that the plan is for the catalog of the exhibit to contain a sample of each fragrance in the show. The accompanying text will also contain Chandler's description of each fragrance and the "school" of fragrance it belongs to. Once I get my hands on the finished product that is something I am looking forward to talking about on Basenotes because as I've said many times I believe it will provide a starting point for us to evolve a continuing discussion of Olfactory Art.
@rogalal I am very glad you are having your Mugler Moment. Have you been able to compare them side-by-side? I would be very interested to hear your impressions in that instance.
@Perfume pour Moi I can see where this could be irritating. As I mentioned in the reveal I felt like it was an olfactory snapshot and that bit of artistry is something to be admired in my opinion. That doesn't mean I reach for this a lot but there are days I want to feel like a brick wall covered in ivy.
post #85 of 128
11/1/12 at 2:33pm
- thebeck
- offline
- Gender:
- 2,597 Posts. Joined 3/2007
- Location: Biggest Little City
- Select All Posts By This User
Quote:
Originally Posted by SculptureOfSoul
I have to thank RP for the sample, but am once again disappointed in the fragrance. I did sniff it on a couple of occasions, but couldn't even muster the energy to join in the discussion here. It's not that it's a terrible fragrance, but it's more of the same from this project: whispy, pale, transparent. Loads of modern weightless musks. Filaments and sparkle.
If the point of this project is to help us to appreciate perfume as art, why keep showing us such a small subsection of perfume? If you wanted to introduce someone to music, or to expand their musical horizons, would you have them listen to nothing but say, 19th century string quartets? To share your appreciation for music as a whole, wouldn't you want to go to expose them to African tribal music, pieces from the various classical eras, an offering or two from the varieties of jazz, some modern pop, electronic, heavy metal, etc?
I just don't understand the point of this anymore. Chandler chastises us for talking about scents in a specific, sometimes narrow manner (ie discussing notes), but continues to choose fragrances that all share the same weight, texture and density. We've at least tried to expand our method of discussion; will Chandler expand the diversity in his selections?
I hope so, but I doubt it. Further, I see a lot of the commentary tends to reflect the original description by Chandler. There has been a lot of excellent commentary, and I don't mean to discount that at all, but I think people might be afraid to fully express opinions contrary to Chandler's for a multitude of reasons (and not necessarily consciously doing so). Or, when such opinions are expressed, they are always compared/contrasted to Chandler's original - thus not growing organically on their own, but always attached to the original description - like a remora fish attached to a shark.
My question to all: Do you feel like you are learning or expanding your horizons via this project? Do you feel you are learning to more deeply embrace your own subjective experience (and descrption) of the scent?
From my observations, it seems that the answer to the latter question in most cases would actually be no. We're discussing things via answering a series of questions, or trying to see how it does or does not fit into the frame that Chandler has created for us.
Maybe I was never the target audience for this project. Maybe I misunderstood it from the start. But, from where I'm sitting, it's not achieving its intentions.
I have to thank RP for the sample, but am once again disappointed in the fragrance. I did sniff it on a couple of occasions, but couldn't even muster the energy to join in the discussion here. It's not that it's a terrible fragrance, but it's more of the same from this project: whispy, pale, transparent. Loads of modern weightless musks. Filaments and sparkle.
If the point of this project is to help us to appreciate perfume as art, why keep showing us such a small subsection of perfume? If you wanted to introduce someone to music, or to expand their musical horizons, would you have them listen to nothing but say, 19th century string quartets? To share your appreciation for music as a whole, wouldn't you want to go to expose them to African tribal music, pieces from the various classical eras, an offering or two from the varieties of jazz, some modern pop, electronic, heavy metal, etc?
I just don't understand the point of this anymore. Chandler chastises us for talking about scents in a specific, sometimes narrow manner (ie discussing notes), but continues to choose fragrances that all share the same weight, texture and density. We've at least tried to expand our method of discussion; will Chandler expand the diversity in his selections?
I hope so, but I doubt it. Further, I see a lot of the commentary tends to reflect the original description by Chandler. There has been a lot of excellent commentary, and I don't mean to discount that at all, but I think people might be afraid to fully express opinions contrary to Chandler's for a multitude of reasons (and not necessarily consciously doing so). Or, when such opinions are expressed, they are always compared/contrasted to Chandler's original - thus not growing organically on their own, but always attached to the original description - like a remora fish attached to a shark.
My question to all: Do you feel like you are learning or expanding your horizons via this project? Do you feel you are learning to more deeply embrace your own subjective experience (and descrption) of the scent?
From my observations, it seems that the answer to the latter question in most cases would actually be no. We're discussing things via answering a series of questions, or trying to see how it does or does not fit into the frame that Chandler has created for us.
Maybe I was never the target audience for this project. Maybe I misunderstood it from the start. But, from where I'm sitting, it's not achieving its intentions.
I agree wholeheartedly. The only thing I've learned is that Mr. Burr and I are in total disagreement on what a good perfume should smell like. How any one would give such a lofty description of such a nothing scent is beyond me.
post #86 of 128
11/1/12 at 3:02pm
- mikeperez23
- offline
- Gender:
- Trader Feedback: +202
- Basenotes Institution
-
- 24,206 Posts. Joined 12/2006
- Location: Miami, FL
- Select All Posts By This User
post #87 of 128
11/1/12 at 5:37pm
- Perfume_Addict
- offline
- Gender:
- 721 Posts. Joined 9/2003
- Location: Milwaukee
- Select All Posts By This User
- Redneck Perfumisto
- offline
- Gender:
- Trader Feedback: +38
- Loving C(h)oco Noir!
-
- 10,235 Posts. Joined 2/2008
- Location: Spiritually, Kansas
- Select All Posts By This User
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeperez23
So this will be revealed...when? I'm a bit confused.
So this will be revealed...when? I'm a bit confused.
Mike - the fragrance was revealed in the video, although not until near the middle. It's Eau de Lierre by Diptyque. And Chandler will be taking off a month for the museum opening. Presumably S01E06 will go online at some point in the future - perhaps the beginnning of December or in the New Year.
Interesting that rogalal had his E02 (Mugler Cologne) moment! I had a completely new type of brain malfunction on this one!
To me, S01E05 smells almost identical to Hermès Eau de Gentiane Blanche. I would love to know the formulas of the two scents, because I strongly suspect that there is a single aromachemical which - in my nose - dominates in both formulas. I even did side-by-side sniffs. While not identical, the differences were less than in the case of S01E01 and S02E02. I was certain that I knew what it was. I was truly shocked to discover that I was wrong.
I think it's good that he's taking some time off. Not only am I finding the need to take a rest, but I am truly flummoxed by this scent.
I need a break!
post #89 of 128
11/1/12 at 6:31pm
- PalmBeach
- offline
- Gender:
- 1,513 Posts. Joined 4/2012
- Location: South Florida
- Select All Posts By This User
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebeck
I agree wholeheartedly. The only thing I've learned is that Mr. Burr and I are in total disagreement on what a good perfume should smell like. How any one would give such a lofty description of such a nothing scent is beyond me.
I agree wholeheartedly. The only thing I've learned is that Mr. Burr and I are in total disagreement on what a good perfume should smell like. How any one would give such a lofty description of such a nothing scent is beyond me.
This is exactly why I didn't comment on S01E05. I found it incredibly boring and forgettable.
post #90 of 128
11/1/12 at 6:51pm
- Somerville Metro Man
- offline
- Gender:
- 4,551 Posts. Joined 2/2008
- Location: Poolesville, MD
- Select All Posts By This User
post #91 of 128
11/1/12 at 11:41pm
- rogalal
- offline
- Gender:
- 3,262 Posts. Joined 1/2009
- Location: Berkeley, California
- Select All Posts By This User
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redneck Perfumisto
Interesting that rogalal had his E02 (Mugler Cologne) moment!
Interesting that rogalal had his E02 (Mugler Cologne) moment!
Honestly, this has gotten me really interested in how time effects perfumes. I had read somewhere here (outtakes from Chandler's book about Ellena??) that a perfume formula has to sit for weeks before it smells anything like it's supposed to. If I recall, the story was more about briefs and perfumers sending off samples without smelling their end results, but I wonder if that happens in regular production.
Irena? Chandler? Does anyone know if, as a part of fragrance manufacturing, they have to let it sit until it opens up and smells right? From a business standpoint, I honestly don't think they would, given that storage is expensive and by the time it's passed through shipping and warehousing and more shipping and more distribution, it's good to go by the time it could hit a store shelf.
It occurs to me that, by the virtue of the way this is set up (new product direct from the manufacturers instead of decanted product from a third party), that this is the first time most of us have ever smelled "fresh" perfume, which may not have had the time to mature into itself.
Given that, what ingredients take time to mature? Is it topnotes like natural citruses or chemical bases or natural flowers or what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redneck Perfumisto
To me, S01E05 smells almost identical to Hermès Eau de Gentiane Blanche.
To me, S01E05 smells almost identical to Hermès Eau de Gentiane Blanche.
That's an interesting one. I can honestly say that Gentiane Blanche would never have occurred to me. GB is so perfectly Ellena, like a nonexistant vegetable mixed with an imaginary flower mixed with pepper. To me, it doesn't smell like a color or a photorealistic thing, but more like an intricate drawing of something completely imaginary.
- Redneck Perfumisto
- offline
- Gender:
- Trader Feedback: +38
- Loving C(h)oco Noir!
-
- 10,235 Posts. Joined 2/2008
- Location: Spiritually, Kansas
- Select All Posts By This User
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogalal
Honestly, this has gotten me really interested in how time effects perfumes. I had read somewhere here (outtakes from Chandler's book about Ellena??) that a perfume formula has to sit for weeks before it smells anything like it's supposed to. If I recall, the story was more about briefs and perfumers sending off samples without smelling their end results, but I wonder if that happens in regular production.
Irena? Chandler? Does anyone know if, as a part of fragrance manufacturing, they have to let it sit until it opens up and smells right? From a business standpoint, I honestly don't think they would, given that storage is expensive and by the time it's passed through shipping and warehousing and more shipping and more distribution, it's good to go by the time it could hit a store shelf.
It occurs to me that, by the virtue of the way this is set up (new product direct from the manufacturers instead of decanted product from a third party), that this is the first time most of us have ever smelled "fresh" perfume, which may not have had the time to mature into itself.
Given that, what ingredients take time to mature? Is it topnotes like natural citruses or chemical bases or natural flowers or what?
Honestly, this has gotten me really interested in how time effects perfumes. I had read somewhere here (outtakes from Chandler's book about Ellena??) that a perfume formula has to sit for weeks before it smells anything like it's supposed to. If I recall, the story was more about briefs and perfumers sending off samples without smelling their end results, but I wonder if that happens in regular production.
Irena? Chandler? Does anyone know if, as a part of fragrance manufacturing, they have to let it sit until it opens up and smells right? From a business standpoint, I honestly don't think they would, given that storage is expensive and by the time it's passed through shipping and warehousing and more shipping and more distribution, it's good to go by the time it could hit a store shelf.
It occurs to me that, by the virtue of the way this is set up (new product direct from the manufacturers instead of decanted product from a third party), that this is the first time most of us have ever smelled "fresh" perfume, which may not have had the time to mature into itself.
Given that, what ingredients take time to mature? Is it topnotes like natural citruses or chemical bases or natural flowers or what?
I have suspected that there are maceration issues in all of these untitled fragrances. But I think that there is even a further (and more important) issue in this case....
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogalal
That's an interesting one. I can honestly say that Gentiane Blanche would never have occurred to me. GB is so perfectly Ellena, like a nonexistant vegetable mixed with an imaginary flower mixed with pepper. To me, it doesn't smell like a color or a photorealistic thing, but more like an intricate drawing of something completely imaginary.
That's an interesting one. I can honestly say that Gentiane Blanche would never have occurred to me. GB is so perfectly Ellena, like a nonexistant vegetable mixed with an imaginary flower mixed with pepper. To me, it doesn't smell like a color or a photorealistic thing, but more like an intricate drawing of something completely imaginary.
Yes - and (from my peculiar viewpoint) I'm surprised that nobody else is seeing this. But my current theory is that it's another case of personal hyperosmia. I'm positive that I'm hyperosmic on at least two non-musk chemicals. One is a very popular synthetic violet - the one that is used in Creed's Love in Black. The other is whatever is the main component of Eau de Gentiane Blanche. The reason I never bought that one was that the chemical was just too strong for me - it almost felt like it was burning my nostrils. I found it crazy that an EdC like EdGB had such amazing longevity. I have never smelled that chemical so clearly in any other fragrance. It is literally like mustard to me, which is why the condiment thing almost seemed to confirm it. So when I smelled it quite clearly in S01E05, with only tiny variations in the rest of the fragrance, I was sure that it had to be EdGB.
If I had to make an analogy, it would be that stupidly cute meme, "The Dog". Those ridiculous close-up photos of puppies, where the tip of the face overwhelms everything. I suspect that to normal noses, these fragrances smell fairly distinct, like differently marked beagles, or even a beagle and a basset. But up close, to my distorting nose, they seem nearly identical. This also seems to explain why some of the things Chandler has been saying, simply make no sense to me. The monotone, textured white-out of this fragrance to my nose, leaves little room for a shadow effect, even distributed.
post #93 of 128
11/2/12 at 12:47am
I may need to bow out here, but I want to thank the intelligent and interesting people on this thread for a good ride.
I have well intended feedback for Mr. Burr.
1. I think it might be helpful to engage an art historian in this project. Your idea of using the language of art history to describe scent is original and has interesting possibilities. I think that your comparison of the creation of Roudnitska's LOTV and photo-realism is inspired. I don't see how this extends to Eau Lierrre. To the best of my knowledge, the scent of ivy comes from its berries. To be photo-realistic, a painting starts with a photo, which is very painstakingly reproduced on canvas using a grid system. Roudnitska created sort of an olfactory grid to create his LOTV.
Let's take a quick look at John Constable's The Glebe Farm: http://www.artchive.com/artchive/c/c...glebe.jpg.html
There's some ivy in Constable's 1830 Romantic painting. Constable moved the landscape in new directions, creating rapid sketches as the light shifted. He didn't use a camera and create a grid from the resulting photograph. Many movements in art rely on the artist seeing an object and then using one of many methods to capture the object on canvas. Constable lovingly captured the beauty of his home area, which was his primary subject.
In 1887, Van Gogh painted Undergrowth, with ivy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Va...mit_Efeu1.jpeg
Van Gogh moved to a more expressionist style toward the end of his life. He was mingling the objects, trees and ivy, and his own complex emotional world.
Gorky's Dark Green Painting (1948) is a bridge that wonderfully defies categorization. There's some surrealism, but he is also moving toward a non-objective canvas. This piece was carefully planned, with a detailed grid before it was painted. There is a world here, but it is of Gorky's imagination.
http://chelseamia.corriere.it/Blog_G...mb-360x282.jpg
Finally, on to abstract expressionism - This is a detail from Pollock's Full Fathom Five (1947) Pollock was said to have broken through to a new type of painting. This painting is abstract, there are no objects in it.
http://arpeggia.tumblr.com/post/34540163427
The photo-realists were among a group of artists who did not wish to create abstract work. Sometime around 1960 they started producing paintings that were very objective.
Here is a piece by Chuck Close, showing his grid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chuck_Close_2.jpg
So, to say that Une Rose or Eau Lierre are so photorealistic that they move toward abstract expressionism does not make sense to me. To the best of my recollection you have called Eau Lierre contemporary romantic, photorealism, figurative, and literal. To say that Une Rose is neon so it is Pop Art also doesn't make sense to me. Pop art took objects from mass culture like comics, and used them to challenge the traditions of fine art. Often the colors were bright, but so were Gaugan's, Matisse's and some ancient Roman mosaics.
I intend no dis-respect and as both an art and fragrance lover wish you the best with this very challenging integration of terms.
2. Again, as well intended feedback, I would urge you to branch out in perfume selection. The holiday's are coming. Why not branch out into an ambery oriental?
I have well intended feedback for Mr. Burr.
1. I think it might be helpful to engage an art historian in this project. Your idea of using the language of art history to describe scent is original and has interesting possibilities. I think that your comparison of the creation of Roudnitska's LOTV and photo-realism is inspired. I don't see how this extends to Eau Lierrre. To the best of my knowledge, the scent of ivy comes from its berries. To be photo-realistic, a painting starts with a photo, which is very painstakingly reproduced on canvas using a grid system. Roudnitska created sort of an olfactory grid to create his LOTV.
Let's take a quick look at John Constable's The Glebe Farm: http://www.artchive.com/artchive/c/c...glebe.jpg.html
There's some ivy in Constable's 1830 Romantic painting. Constable moved the landscape in new directions, creating rapid sketches as the light shifted. He didn't use a camera and create a grid from the resulting photograph. Many movements in art rely on the artist seeing an object and then using one of many methods to capture the object on canvas. Constable lovingly captured the beauty of his home area, which was his primary subject.
In 1887, Van Gogh painted Undergrowth, with ivy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Va...mit_Efeu1.jpeg
Van Gogh moved to a more expressionist style toward the end of his life. He was mingling the objects, trees and ivy, and his own complex emotional world.
Gorky's Dark Green Painting (1948) is a bridge that wonderfully defies categorization. There's some surrealism, but he is also moving toward a non-objective canvas. This piece was carefully planned, with a detailed grid before it was painted. There is a world here, but it is of Gorky's imagination.
http://chelseamia.corriere.it/Blog_G...mb-360x282.jpg
Finally, on to abstract expressionism - This is a detail from Pollock's Full Fathom Five (1947) Pollock was said to have broken through to a new type of painting. This painting is abstract, there are no objects in it.
http://arpeggia.tumblr.com/post/34540163427
The photo-realists were among a group of artists who did not wish to create abstract work. Sometime around 1960 they started producing paintings that were very objective.
Here is a piece by Chuck Close, showing his grid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chuck_Close_2.jpg
So, to say that Une Rose or Eau Lierre are so photorealistic that they move toward abstract expressionism does not make sense to me. To the best of my recollection you have called Eau Lierre contemporary romantic, photorealism, figurative, and literal. To say that Une Rose is neon so it is Pop Art also doesn't make sense to me. Pop art took objects from mass culture like comics, and used them to challenge the traditions of fine art. Often the colors were bright, but so were Gaugan's, Matisse's and some ancient Roman mosaics.
I intend no dis-respect and as both an art and fragrance lover wish you the best with this very challenging integration of terms.
2. Again, as well intended feedback, I would urge you to branch out in perfume selection. The holiday's are coming. Why not branch out into an ambery oriental?
post #94 of 128
11/2/12 at 12:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogalal
Honestly, this has gotten me really interested in how time effects perfumes. I had read somewhere here (outtakes from Chandler's book about Ellena??) that a perfume formula has to sit for weeks before it smells anything like it's supposed to. If I recall, the story was more about briefs and perfumers sending off samples without smelling their end results, but I wonder if that happens in regular production.
Irena? Chandler? Does anyone know if, as a part of fragrance manufacturing, they have to let it sit until it opens up and smells right? From a business standpoint, I honestly don't think they would, given that storage is expensive and by the time it's passed through shipping and warehousing and more shipping and more distribution, it's good to go by the time it could hit a store shelf.
It occurs to me that, by the virtue of the way this is set up (new product direct from the manufacturers instead of decanted product from a third party), that this is the first time most of us have ever smelled "fresh" perfume, which may not have had the time to mature into itself.
Given that, what ingredients take time to mature? Is it topnotes like natural citruses or chemical bases or natural flowers or what?
Honestly, this has gotten me really interested in how time effects perfumes. I had read somewhere here (outtakes from Chandler's book about Ellena??) that a perfume formula has to sit for weeks before it smells anything like it's supposed to. If I recall, the story was more about briefs and perfumers sending off samples without smelling their end results, but I wonder if that happens in regular production.
Irena? Chandler? Does anyone know if, as a part of fragrance manufacturing, they have to let it sit until it opens up and smells right? From a business standpoint, I honestly don't think they would, given that storage is expensive and by the time it's passed through shipping and warehousing and more shipping and more distribution, it's good to go by the time it could hit a store shelf.
It occurs to me that, by the virtue of the way this is set up (new product direct from the manufacturers instead of decanted product from a third party), that this is the first time most of us have ever smelled "fresh" perfume, which may not have had the time to mature into itself.
Given that, what ingredients take time to mature? Is it topnotes like natural citruses or chemical bases or natural flowers or what?
It depends on the formula and the manufacturer. I would say that most fixative base notes, especially bigger molecules like musks, but also bigger woody amber molecules, take a longer time to set. The citruses and aldehydes are best smelled fresh due to oxidation.
I thinks the issues with this project are very very interesting because they reveal so many interesting questions like:
Can perfume that has been constructed well to just 'perfume' even be perceived as art due to the biochemical complications like anosmia, oxidation, formulation etc. (I mean imagine the MonaLisa drastically changing its colors and composition depending on the viewer and the museum where it would be displayed)
Octavian wrote something along those lines that perfume art can only be art when set in a conceptual art context like with Martynka Wawrzyniak's 'smell me' project.
http://1000fragrances.blogspot.co.uk...yniak-and.html
When it comes to what I smell, my motto is:
I always trust my nose and I never trust my nose.
- Redneck Perfumisto
- offline
- Gender:
- Trader Feedback: +38
- Loving C(h)oco Noir!
-
- 10,235 Posts. Joined 2/2008
- Location: Spiritually, Kansas
- Select All Posts By This User
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irina
I thinks the issues with this project are very very interesting because they reveal so many interesting questions like:
Can perfume that has been constructed well to just 'perfume' even be perceived as art due to the biochemical complications like anosmia, oxidation, formulation etc. (I mean imagine the MonaLisa drastically changing its colors and composition depending on the viewer and the museum where it would be displayed)
I thinks the issues with this project are very very interesting because they reveal so many interesting questions like:
Can perfume that has been constructed well to just 'perfume' even be perceived as art due to the biochemical complications like anosmia, oxidation, formulation etc. (I mean imagine the MonaLisa drastically changing its colors and composition depending on the viewer and the museum where it would be displayed)
Very interesting!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irina
Octavian wrote something along those lines that perfume art can only be art when set in a conceptual art context like with Martynka Wawrzyniak's 'smell me' project.
http://1000fragrances.blogspot.co.uk...yniak-and.html
Octavian wrote something along those lines that perfume art can only be art when set in a conceptual art context like with Martynka Wawrzyniak's 'smell me' project.
http://1000fragrances.blogspot.co.uk...yniak-and.html
Also very interesting!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irina
When it comes to what I smell, my motto is:
I always trust my nose and I never trust my nose.
When it comes to what I smell, my motto is:
I always trust my nose and I never trust my nose.
&&
post #96 of 128
11/2/12 at 2:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redneck Perfumisto
I have suspected that there are maceration issues in all of these untitled fragrances. But I think that there is even a further (and more important) issue in this case....
Yes - and (from my peculiar viewpoint) I'm surprised that nobody else is seeing this. But my current theory is that it's another case of personal hyperosmia. I'm positive that I'm hyperosmic on at least two non-musk chemicals. One is a very popular synthetic violet - the one that is used in Creed's Love in Black. The other is whatever is the main component of Eau de Gentiane Blanche. The reason I never bought that one was that the chemical was just too strong for me - it almost felt like it was burning my nostrils. I found it crazy that an EdC like EdGB had such amazing longevity. I have never smelled that chemical so clearly in any other fragrance. It is literally like mustard to me, which is why the condiment thing almost seemed to confirm it. So when I smelled it quite clearly in S01E05, with only tiny variations in the rest of the fragrance, I was sure that it had to be EdGB.
If I had to make an analogy, it would be that stupidly cute meme, "The Dog". Those ridiculous close-up photos of puppies, where the tip of the face overwhelms everything. I suspect that to normal noses, these fragrances smell fairly distinct, like differently marked beagles, or even a beagle and a basset. But up close, to my distorting nose, they seem nearly identical. This also seems to explain why some of the things Chandler has been saying, simply make no sense to me. The monotone, textured white-out of this fragrance to my nose, leaves little room for a shadow effect, even distributed.
I have suspected that there are maceration issues in all of these untitled fragrances. But I think that there is even a further (and more important) issue in this case....
Yes - and (from my peculiar viewpoint) I'm surprised that nobody else is seeing this. But my current theory is that it's another case of personal hyperosmia. I'm positive that I'm hyperosmic on at least two non-musk chemicals. One is a very popular synthetic violet - the one that is used in Creed's Love in Black. The other is whatever is the main component of Eau de Gentiane Blanche. The reason I never bought that one was that the chemical was just too strong for me - it almost felt like it was burning my nostrils. I found it crazy that an EdC like EdGB had such amazing longevity. I have never smelled that chemical so clearly in any other fragrance. It is literally like mustard to me, which is why the condiment thing almost seemed to confirm it. So when I smelled it quite clearly in S01E05, with only tiny variations in the rest of the fragrance, I was sure that it had to be EdGB.
If I had to make an analogy, it would be that stupidly cute meme, "The Dog". Those ridiculous close-up photos of puppies, where the tip of the face overwhelms everything. I suspect that to normal noses, these fragrances smell fairly distinct, like differently marked beagles, or even a beagle and a basset. But up close, to my distorting nose, they seem nearly identical. This also seems to explain why some of the things Chandler has been saying, simply make no sense to me. The monotone, textured white-out of this fragrance to my nose, leaves little room for a shadow effect, even distributed.
This is very interesting. I found E05 very difficult to smell. I grew up in a house that had ivy on brick, but did not smell this at all in E05. I smelled cucumber, citrus and salt. I had a really hard time smelling anything in the middle. If I put my nose directly on my skin I got a vegetal smell. I know that I don't smell some musks, which is in some ways a great thing. To me Jicky is a lovely somewhat oriental soft fern fragrance. I did get the wood at the bottom of Eau de Lierre. I think your comments about what we don't smell, what we smell differently, or too much are interesting.
For Yuzu Rouge, I smelled Yuzu, tea, and other citrus. I didn't smell nutmeg, which I definately know I smell from cooking with it. Maybe it's the way the juices ages. Interesting conundrum.
post #97 of 128
11/2/12 at 11:14am
- rogalal
- offline
- Gender:
- 3,262 Posts. Joined 1/2009
- Location: Berkeley, California
- Select All Posts By This User
It's interesting- with all this talk of the basic perception of scents, it made me think...
With visual art, we assume that we all look at a painting and see the same thing. I'll use my avatar, Edward Ruscha's Oof,from the NY MOMA:
Aside from people with color-blindness, we can all see the big dark blue canvas with the yellow OOF. Even if our brains are different and we're technically seeing dark blue and yellow in different ways, it doesn't matter because we were all taught as little children what blue and yellow looked like and we can all look at that painting and see blue and yellow.
Perfume is MUCH more difficult to discuss because we weren't taught as little children to recognize tomato leaf or hedione or some fraction of cassis. So we're at a place where we can't even agree that the canvas is blue.
With visual art, we assume that we all look at a painting and see the same thing. I'll use my avatar, Edward Ruscha's Oof,from the NY MOMA:
Aside from people with color-blindness, we can all see the big dark blue canvas with the yellow OOF. Even if our brains are different and we're technically seeing dark blue and yellow in different ways, it doesn't matter because we were all taught as little children what blue and yellow looked like and we can all look at that painting and see blue and yellow.
Perfume is MUCH more difficult to discuss because we weren't taught as little children to recognize tomato leaf or hedione or some fraction of cassis. So we're at a place where we can't even agree that the canvas is blue.
post #98 of 128
11/2/12 at 4:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogalal
It's interesting- with all this talk of the basic perception of scents, it made me think...
With visual art, we assume that we all look at a painting and see the same thing. I'll use my avatar, Edward Ruscha's Oof,from the NY MOMA:
Aside from people with color-blindness, we can all see the big dark blue canvas with the yellow OOF. Even if our brains are different and we're technically seeing dark blue and yellow in different ways, it doesn't matter because we were all taught as little children what blue and yellow looked like and we can all look at that painting and see blue and yellow.
Perfume is MUCH more difficult to discuss because we weren't taught as little children to recognize tomato leaf or hedione or some fraction of cassis. So we're at a place where we can't even agree that the canvas is blue.
It's interesting- with all this talk of the basic perception of scents, it made me think...
With visual art, we assume that we all look at a painting and see the same thing. I'll use my avatar, Edward Ruscha's Oof,from the NY MOMA:
Aside from people with color-blindness, we can all see the big dark blue canvas with the yellow OOF. Even if our brains are different and we're technically seeing dark blue and yellow in different ways, it doesn't matter because we were all taught as little children what blue and yellow looked like and we can all look at that painting and see blue and yellow.
Perfume is MUCH more difficult to discuss because we weren't taught as little children to recognize tomato leaf or hedione or some fraction of cassis. So we're at a place where we can't even agree that the canvas is blue.
Totally agree about the lack of olfatory education. Also think that art history has an academic tradition and vocabulary that I freely admit I am not objective about. I love the academics of art history. I think that combining art history and scent is a great idea. I just think that the accepted scholarship of art history needs to play into the process.
Maybe the issue is that as children we were lucky if we were taught any of the arts.
post #99 of 128
11/3/12 at 3:21am
post #100 of 128
11/3/12 at 4:05am
- Twolf
- offline
- Gender:
- Trader Feedback: +214
- Supporter
-
- 9,331 Posts. Joined 2/2005
- Select All Posts By This User
Have been following your discussion --each month -- with interest.
SoS, thanks for the guts you have shown in #80. Exactly my thoughts: more hosts with the multitude of their olfactory perceptions are the only way out. Enough of insipid, pale, washed out spineless musks. Makes me think twice about "We have no taste" slogan on the bag of ice. :-)
SMM, thanks for your input. Kiss the poodles for me, willya please?
SoS, thanks for the guts you have shown in #80. Exactly my thoughts: more hosts with the multitude of their olfactory perceptions are the only way out. Enough of insipid, pale, washed out spineless musks. Makes me think twice about "We have no taste" slogan on the bag of ice. :-)
SMM, thanks for your input. Kiss the poodles for me, willya please?
post #101 of 128
11/3/12 at 1:25pm
- ROtto
- offline
- 888 Posts. Joined 9/2008
- Location: Santa Clara, CA
- Select All Posts By This User
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogalal
Even if our brains are different and we're technically seeing dark blue and yellow in different ways, it doesn't matter because we were all taught as little children what blue and yellow looked like and we can all look at that painting and see blue and yellow.
Even if our brains are different and we're technically seeing dark blue and yellow in different ways, it doesn't matter because we were all taught as little children what blue and yellow looked like and we can all look at that painting and see blue and yellow.
The training is the important part. Mos older cultures don't distinguish between blue and green and use the same word for both, and many in these cultures can't see the difference between them (also listen to this: http://www.radiolab.org/2012/may/21/sky-isnt-blue). Hearing works the same way. The Japanese language doesn't have an L, and many Japanese can't hear the difference between the English "L" and "R". Tamil has a third liquid consonant -- ask someone from Tamil Nadu to pronounce all three and you won't hear much difference.
It took me a while to figure out what people here were referring to when they said a perfume had a "cumin" note, which doesn't smell like cumin at all, at least not to me.
post #102 of 128
11/3/12 at 3:36pm
- MonkeyBars
- online
- Gender:
- 3,631 Posts. Joined 5/2011
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
- Select All Posts By This User
Quote:
Originally Posted by ROtto
The training is the important part. Mos older cultures don't distinguish between blue and green and use the same word for both, and many in these cultures can't see the difference between them (also listen to this: http://www.radiolab.org/2012/may/21/sky-isnt-blue). Hearing works the same way. The Japanese language doesn't have an L, and many Japanese can't hear the difference between the English "L" and "R". Tamil has a third liquid consonant -- ask someone from Tamil Nadu to pronounce all three and you won't hear much difference.
It took me a while to figure out what people here were referring to when they said a perfume had a "cumin" note, which doesn't smell like cumin at all, at least not to me.
The training is the important part. Mos older cultures don't distinguish between blue and green and use the same word for both, and many in these cultures can't see the difference between them (also listen to this: http://www.radiolab.org/2012/may/21/sky-isnt-blue). Hearing works the same way. The Japanese language doesn't have an L, and many Japanese can't hear the difference between the English "L" and "R". Tamil has a third liquid consonant -- ask someone from Tamil Nadu to pronounce all three and you won't hear much difference.
It took me a while to figure out what people here were referring to when they said a perfume had a "cumin" note, which doesn't smell like cumin at all, at least not to me.
Good points. I recently saw a science program where they insisted that some people are born with a 4th color receptor in their eyes which allows them to see a color they call "reddish" mixed into the spectrum in the sky, which others see as pure blue. Like a color between the cracks. Apparently there wasn't really a word for blue in the West until a blue pigment was developed in the Middle Ages. (Red, golden, purple, brown and green dyes are much easier to create with natural ingredients than blue.) Hence, Homer speaks of the "wine-dark sea" and the sky is described as white or "light-colored." Just shows how much our assumptions are based on cultural experience and/or genetic differences.
post #103 of 128
11/3/12 at 3:48pm
post #104 of 128
11/3/12 at 9:56pm
- L'Homme Blanc Individuel
- offline
- Gender:
-
- 1,855 Posts. Joined 7/2012
- Location: Portland, OR
- Select All Posts By This User
Quote:
Originally Posted by L'Homme Blanc Individuel
with eyes closed, my mind wanders and I find myself in a grassy field. It's a perfect spring day, and I am on my back, lying on a dry patch of otherwise damp grass. There are dandelions everywhere, and the sun is shining. And then something strange happens. Am I... smelling... lunch?
Do I smell a fast-food burger wrapper? The yellowness of this scent reminds me of being a kid and getting a McDonalds burger, wrapped in yellow paper with their logo all over it. Is it a hint of mustard that I'm smelling?!? A hint of mustard and pickles? Onion? I can't believe I'm having that thought, but now I can't stop from thinking about it.
with eyes closed, my mind wanders and I find myself in a grassy field. It's a perfect spring day, and I am on my back, lying on a dry patch of otherwise damp grass. There are dandelions everywhere, and the sun is shining. And then something strange happens. Am I... smelling... lunch?
Do I smell a fast-food burger wrapper? The yellowness of this scent reminds me of being a kid and getting a McDonalds burger, wrapped in yellow paper with their logo all over it. Is it a hint of mustard that I'm smelling?!? A hint of mustard and pickles? Onion? I can't believe I'm having that thought, but now I can't stop from thinking about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogalal
I wore EO5 again today with this in mind. I think the pickle association is probably coming from the dill. And today I swear I smell a touch of fennel, which is combining with the bile undertones of the tomato leaf to smell an awful lot like onion breath.
This actually gave me a lot to think about. On a larger scale, I've always seen perfume as both art and craft. Art in the sense that it's interpretable and craft in the sense that there's a right way and a wrong way to do it. In my mind, one of the principle points of perfumery is to create something that smells good, at least to someone. And when I've smelled scents like EO5 in the past, I've usually considered them failures because they have parts that smell bad. As an example, I remember writing scathing things about Varvatos Artisan because it had this same bile tomato undercurrent mixing with fennel (though it also had a very subtle fecal quality that made the dark undertones smell to me like flu diarrhea *shudder* ).
I can honestly say that it had never even occurred to me until today that a perfumer would knowingly include disgusting undertones like these in their perfumes,intentionally and on purpose. I had always considered them a failure on the perfumer's part, not adequately masking the gross bits.
It seems like Chandler may be saying that it's the intentional balance between the tasty bits and the gross bits (symbolizing dark vs light) that he finds compelling and artful about EO5 (using Jicky as an acceptable root for the idea). And I find that fascinating. Somehow, I've accepted civet and castoreum and other bad smells as artful, but modern "niche" gross smells like the onions here or the pee in Guerlain's Pamplelune I've never even considered in the same light.
I wore EO5 again today with this in mind. I think the pickle association is probably coming from the dill. And today I swear I smell a touch of fennel, which is combining with the bile undertones of the tomato leaf to smell an awful lot like onion breath.
This actually gave me a lot to think about. On a larger scale, I've always seen perfume as both art and craft. Art in the sense that it's interpretable and craft in the sense that there's a right way and a wrong way to do it. In my mind, one of the principle points of perfumery is to create something that smells good, at least to someone. And when I've smelled scents like EO5 in the past, I've usually considered them failures because they have parts that smell bad. As an example, I remember writing scathing things about Varvatos Artisan because it had this same bile tomato undercurrent mixing with fennel (though it also had a very subtle fecal quality that made the dark undertones smell to me like flu diarrhea *shudder* ).
I can honestly say that it had never even occurred to me until today that a perfumer would knowingly include disgusting undertones like these in their perfumes,intentionally and on purpose. I had always considered them a failure on the perfumer's part, not adequately masking the gross bits.
It seems like Chandler may be saying that it's the intentional balance between the tasty bits and the gross bits (symbolizing dark vs light) that he finds compelling and artful about EO5 (using Jicky as an acceptable root for the idea). And I find that fascinating. Somehow, I've accepted civet and castoreum and other bad smells as artful, but modern "niche" gross smells like the onions here or the pee in Guerlain's Pamplelune I've never even considered in the same light.
And that's where he loses me.
Yes, perfume is art, but what sort of art is it? Is perfume the sort of art to be shown in city plazas, or hung on a wall? Is it the sort of installation where a crowd of people gather to discuss what it is? "Is that a screwdriver suspended from the ceiling by dental floss...?"
No.
Perfume is art with a specific purpose. It is made to be worn.
I don't understand the idea of a jacket made with intentionally ugly parts. I understand edgy. I understand abstract. I understand the unexpected. But I don't understand choosing to smell like things I wouldn't want to smell like. Specifically, I'm talking about condiments from my lunch. Pickles. Onions. LOVE 'EM! Mustard? Relish? THOSE TOO! ...and how about in a perfume? BLETCH!
I was so into this scent at first. I literally closed my eyes and leaned back in my chair, almost as if disappearing into a moment, finding myself transported to a grassy field on a nice day. But as I sat there, attempting to enjoy a moment, I couldn't help wanting to brush imaginary burger wrappers off myself. I couldn't feel them, but I could smell them everywhere.
- - - Updated - - -
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogalal
Check out this article from Luca Turin: http://doublebasenotes.blogspot.com/...uca-turin.html
where he talks about receiving a shipment of Guerlains fresh from the factory and how he'd never really believed in, until then, the idea that perfumes drastically change in their first 6 months. This goes a long way to explain the Mugler Cologne questions, and could also have a hand in the discrepancies you're finding now.
Check out this article from Luca Turin: http://doublebasenotes.blogspot.com/...uca-turin.html
where he talks about receiving a shipment of Guerlains fresh from the factory and how he'd never really believed in, until then, the idea that perfumes drastically change in their first 6 months. This goes a long way to explain the Mugler Cologne questions, and could also have a hand in the discrepancies you're finding now.
MIND = BLOWN.
Not so much by the article as by the concept itself being true. I forget that a perfume is not a thing. Rather, it is a combination of many things, and that combination evolves as the composition ages. Yes? No? Maybe? Sometimes more so than others? Food for thought, but hold the condiments (in the perfumes, anyway).
- - - Updated - - -
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redneck Perfumisto
If anything, this project has taught me just how much of a lie the *LABEL ITSELF* is - no matter what associations we bring to the table. Labels don't just distort our judgement - they actually lie about the constancy of content, simply by doing their legitimate job.
If anything, this project has taught me just how much of a lie the *LABEL ITSELF* is - no matter what associations we bring to the table. Labels don't just distort our judgement - they actually lie about the constancy of content, simply by doing their legitimate job.
This has been the biggest disappointment in this experiment thus far. I absolutely adore the idea of a curator taking us on a journey through a museum of scents without labels. But why oh why must the scents be so similar?!? I'm not complaining about the choices - just the sameness of the choices. Yes, yes, they're each unique just as each snowflake is unique, but there's an element of sameness in the snow. It's as if the museum of scents is holding an exhibition of a particular genre and we're limited to that. But the only limitations our curator has are those he chose. Why choose any?
- Redneck Perfumisto
- offline
- Gender:
- Trader Feedback: +38
- Loving C(h)oco Noir!
-
- 10,235 Posts. Joined 2/2008
- Location: Spiritually, Kansas
- Select All Posts By This User
I agree that this thing has not gone off perfectly. In fact, I think that a hiatus may be useful just in offering the chance to recalibrate. There are a lot of risks in this first large-scale sniff event by Chandler, and rediscovering the reality of maceration, etc., seems to be one of them.
But there are even more issues with perfume as art. I am fully convinced of the following things:
- Perfume is art that changes more easily than many - that requires not just restoration, but re-creation, to exist.
- It is possible for artistically significant aspects to fade, disappear, or not have yet come into existence.
- All viewers of the art are astigmatic to a very high degree.
- Continuing the analogy, partial color-blindness and wavelength-dependent photosensitivity are the norm.
- Interestingly, it almost seems like we see each other's sensory defects more easily than we see our own.
- The language of the sense is poorly developed, and the application of the language of the arts suffers because of it.
- The assertion that the standard chronology of art history applies to fragrance is highly plausible, but I would like to see more and more proof. That proof will arise by consensus of freely diverging opinions. We already see diverging opinions about interpretation of works in that context. VERY GOOD. Otherwise, it risks a lack of rigor.
- The role of components is not strictly analogous to those used in the visual arts. Chandler has rightfully dragged us away from reducing things to a chronological laundry list of notes and components. However, the odors of individual components are intrinsically useful, either as language constructs themselves, or in deducing better language constructs. Beyond their mathematically constructive utility as small vectors, they are more than just paint colors - they are patterns in themselves, and they interact to a huge degree in ways that are partially determined by their own natures. Higher constructs cannot be discussed without speaking about the parts - at least, not with any rigor. To borrow from Chanel: "Inevitable."
- Spatial and geometric analogies are useful in fragrance, but they are arbitrary, and we need to be careful about using them to communicate, because not only are they not "real" - they are not even canonical in any valid way. Temporal concepts are more realistic, but even those are readily distorted in going to language, and must be used carefully.
- The beauty of fragrance is highly dependent upon shared experience of the sense, and also upon previous memories. This is why metaphor works so well - when both ends have the key - as a communication medium when talking about the beauty of scent, but not about it's construction. Borrowing from a conversation that I had with Pascal Gaurin, it is more useful to describe something as having the odor of a particular spice, than to say it smells like Grandma's kitchen. Both perfumers and perfumistas can readily see the truth of that statement. However, who among us has not "gotten" the beauty of a scent when a metaphor was presented to us? Who among us has not been in awe of some of Luca Turin's brilliant olfactory descriptions of certain masterpieces? Marketing, critics, and the "perfume lover" in us, all see the importance and utility of communication by such means, because metaphor encapsulates multiple nuances that are otherwise difficult to encode in the language, much less in a compact way. And I will argue that these shared, complex descriptions which transmit by simple yet inexact phraseology, may actually be a remarkably compact and yet more precise mathematical "fit" of the beauty of fragrance, than what we can do with arbitrary visualizations, translated into words. I almost want to congratulate marketing for their rigor, which in retrospect seems greater than any description of "roundness" or "brightness" that we can muster, no matter how well-communicated or brilliantly worded.
Summing up, I feel that this project has been incredibly worthwhile - not so much for agreeing with Chandler, but in beginning a fascinating and important conversation. He's lighting a spark - and I'm thrilled that it seems to be catching. I'm also looking forward to the museum opening - HUGELY.
But there are even more issues with perfume as art. I am fully convinced of the following things:
- Perfume is art that changes more easily than many - that requires not just restoration, but re-creation, to exist.
- It is possible for artistically significant aspects to fade, disappear, or not have yet come into existence.
- All viewers of the art are astigmatic to a very high degree.
- Continuing the analogy, partial color-blindness and wavelength-dependent photosensitivity are the norm.
- Interestingly, it almost seems like we see each other's sensory defects more easily than we see our own.
- The language of the sense is poorly developed, and the application of the language of the arts suffers because of it.
- The assertion that the standard chronology of art history applies to fragrance is highly plausible, but I would like to see more and more proof. That proof will arise by consensus of freely diverging opinions. We already see diverging opinions about interpretation of works in that context. VERY GOOD. Otherwise, it risks a lack of rigor.
- The role of components is not strictly analogous to those used in the visual arts. Chandler has rightfully dragged us away from reducing things to a chronological laundry list of notes and components. However, the odors of individual components are intrinsically useful, either as language constructs themselves, or in deducing better language constructs. Beyond their mathematically constructive utility as small vectors, they are more than just paint colors - they are patterns in themselves, and they interact to a huge degree in ways that are partially determined by their own natures. Higher constructs cannot be discussed without speaking about the parts - at least, not with any rigor. To borrow from Chanel: "Inevitable."
- Spatial and geometric analogies are useful in fragrance, but they are arbitrary, and we need to be careful about using them to communicate, because not only are they not "real" - they are not even canonical in any valid way. Temporal concepts are more realistic, but even those are readily distorted in going to language, and must be used carefully.
- The beauty of fragrance is highly dependent upon shared experience of the sense, and also upon previous memories. This is why metaphor works so well - when both ends have the key - as a communication medium when talking about the beauty of scent, but not about it's construction. Borrowing from a conversation that I had with Pascal Gaurin, it is more useful to describe something as having the odor of a particular spice, than to say it smells like Grandma's kitchen. Both perfumers and perfumistas can readily see the truth of that statement. However, who among us has not "gotten" the beauty of a scent when a metaphor was presented to us? Who among us has not been in awe of some of Luca Turin's brilliant olfactory descriptions of certain masterpieces? Marketing, critics, and the "perfume lover" in us, all see the importance and utility of communication by such means, because metaphor encapsulates multiple nuances that are otherwise difficult to encode in the language, much less in a compact way. And I will argue that these shared, complex descriptions which transmit by simple yet inexact phraseology, may actually be a remarkably compact and yet more precise mathematical "fit" of the beauty of fragrance, than what we can do with arbitrary visualizations, translated into words. I almost want to congratulate marketing for their rigor, which in retrospect seems greater than any description of "roundness" or "brightness" that we can muster, no matter how well-communicated or brilliantly worded.
Summing up, I feel that this project has been incredibly worthwhile - not so much for agreeing with Chandler, but in beginning a fascinating and important conversation. He's lighting a spark - and I'm thrilled that it seems to be catching. I'm also looking forward to the museum opening - HUGELY.
post #106 of 128
11/4/12 at 12:47pm
- rogalal
- offline
- Gender:
- 3,262 Posts. Joined 1/2009
- Location: Berkeley, California
- Select All Posts By This User
Great summary, Red!
I was thinking about this also and had a couple of small revelations.
We're still in a place where 99.999999999% of people don't even think of perfumes as art, and the mere fact that a few of us are trying to critique it as such IS one of the big points of this exercise, whether we agree or like the perfumes or not.
Also, in terms of art criticism, it kind of doesn't matter if there are maturation issues. If nothing else, it makes it so that playing the "which perfume is this" game is pointless - potentially putting the focus back on the conversation, which in this case is a good thing.
I was thinking about this also and had a couple of small revelations.
We're still in a place where 99.999999999% of people don't even think of perfumes as art, and the mere fact that a few of us are trying to critique it as such IS one of the big points of this exercise, whether we agree or like the perfumes or not.
Also, in terms of art criticism, it kind of doesn't matter if there are maturation issues. If nothing else, it makes it so that playing the "which perfume is this" game is pointless - potentially putting the focus back on the conversation, which in this case is a good thing.
post #107 of 128
11/4/12 at 6:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redneck Perfumisto
I agree that this thing has not gone off perfectly.
- The assertion that the standard chronology of art history applies to fragrance is highly plausible, but I would like to see more and more proof. That proof will arise by consensus of freely diverging opinions. We already see diverging opinions about interpretation of works in that context. VERY GOOD. Otherwise, it risks a lack of rigor.
I agree that this thing has not gone off perfectly.
- The assertion that the standard chronology of art history applies to fragrance is highly plausible, but I would like to see more and more proof. That proof will arise by consensus of freely diverging opinions. We already see diverging opinions about interpretation of works in that context. VERY GOOD. Otherwise, it risks a lack of rigor.
I cannot see this working if the art history is not used correctly. This is a quote from Chandler Burr in the article "NY Museum Stages First Scent Exhibit" by Dr. Blake Gopnik, PhD, Art History[Oxford University]:
Burr recalls how he’d always thought “a painting is a painting,” until an accidental encounter with a connoisseur showed him how much a trained eye could unpack from a single van Gogh. “It was a huge shock to me that he saw a hundred times more in this painting than I did,” Burr says.
If art history is to be applied to fragrance, the art history must not stray from the field's accepted scholarship.
Dr. Podnik goes on to say:
He [Burr] suggests another sniff [of Eau de Protection]. Okay, this time the rose becomes clear. But still no metal—maybe a touch of steely astringency—and certainly no blood. Still basically perfume, if maybe a perfume that’s rather different from others. “It’s weird! It’s strange!” Burr insists. “If an alarm bell doesn’t go off when you smell this, you have a neurological problem.” Or maybe you’re just an untutored philistine of fragrance, as impervious to scent’s subtleties as a perfumer might be to the difference between, say, synthetic and analytic cubism.
Perhaps Dr. Podnik is suggesting that each of the arts, i.e music, art, architecture, perfume require detailed knowledge and serious study. In this example, Mr. Burr is attempting to get Dr. Podnik to smell specific notes (blood, rose, metal). This is not Dr. Podnik's field, and he smells only the rose.
Mr. Burr is not discussing the fragrance to this art historican in art historical terms. He he talking about it in the standard language of perfume, as notes.
- Redneck Perfumisto
- offline
- Gender:
- Trader Feedback: +38
- Loving C(h)oco Noir!
-
- 10,235 Posts. Joined 2/2008
- Location: Spiritually, Kansas
- Select All Posts By This User
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babsvs
I cannot see this working if the art history is not used correctly. This is a quote from Chandler Burr in the article "NY Museum Stages First Scent Exhibit" by Dr. Blake Gopnik, PhD, Art History[Oxford University]:
Burr recalls how hed always thought a painting is a painting, until an accidental encounter with a connoisseur showed him how much a trained eye could unpack from a single van Gogh. It was a huge shock to me that he saw a hundred times more in this painting than I did, Burr says.
If art history is to be applied to fragrance, the art history must not stray from the field's accepted scholarship.
Dr. Podnik goes on to say:
He [Burr] suggests another sniff [of Eau de Protection]. Okay, this time the rose becomes clear. But still no metalmaybe a touch of steely astringencyand certainly no blood. Still basically perfume, if maybe a perfume thats rather different from others. Its weird! Its strange! Burr insists. If an alarm bell doesnt go off when you smell this, you have a neurological problem. Or maybe youre just an untutored philistine of fragrance, as impervious to scents subtleties as a perfumer might be to the difference between, say, synthetic and analytic cubism.
Perhaps Dr. Podnik is suggesting that each of the arts, i.e music, art, architecture, perfume require detailed knowledge and serious study. In this example, Mr. Burr is attempting to get Dr. Podnik to smell specific notes (blood, rose, metal). This is not Dr. Podnik's field, and he smells only the rose.
Mr. Burr is not discussing the fragrance to this art historican in art historical terms. He [is] talking about it in the standard language of perfume, as notes.
I cannot see this working if the art history is not used correctly. This is a quote from Chandler Burr in the article "NY Museum Stages First Scent Exhibit" by Dr. Blake Gopnik, PhD, Art History[Oxford University]:
Burr recalls how hed always thought a painting is a painting, until an accidental encounter with a connoisseur showed him how much a trained eye could unpack from a single van Gogh. It was a huge shock to me that he saw a hundred times more in this painting than I did, Burr says.
If art history is to be applied to fragrance, the art history must not stray from the field's accepted scholarship.
Dr. Podnik goes on to say:
He [Burr] suggests another sniff [of Eau de Protection]. Okay, this time the rose becomes clear. But still no metalmaybe a touch of steely astringencyand certainly no blood. Still basically perfume, if maybe a perfume thats rather different from others. Its weird! Its strange! Burr insists. If an alarm bell doesnt go off when you smell this, you have a neurological problem. Or maybe youre just an untutored philistine of fragrance, as impervious to scents subtleties as a perfumer might be to the difference between, say, synthetic and analytic cubism.
Perhaps Dr. Podnik is suggesting that each of the arts, i.e music, art, architecture, perfume require detailed knowledge and serious study. In this example, Mr. Burr is attempting to get Dr. Podnik to smell specific notes (blood, rose, metal). This is not Dr. Podnik's field, and he smells only the rose.
Mr. Burr is not discussing the fragrance to this art historican in art historical terms. He [is] talking about it in the standard language of perfume, as notes.
Excellent points - I think this shows *exactly* the places were you and I see problems. I don't think these problems are showstoppers - not at all. I just think that the task at hand is bigger and more complex than simply taking fragrance and adding art history like a dash of salt. In fact, I would liken the bringing of art history to the world of olfaction, to moving a *potentially* cross-platform computer language to a completely novel and highly problematic platform. NOT. EASY. And not done by ignoring the peculiarities of the platform.
I think that bringing art history and fragrance together is more than possible - it's inevitable. But I also think it's going to take two or three scholastic generations merely to get on a strong footing. Perfumers take 7 years to train - add in art history and do the math. And say a prayer for anybody who chooses to tackle the neurological aspects of the art.
Perhaps the art historians, olfactory scientists, and perfumers need to start taking their sabbaticals with each other. I hope that Chandler can create an environment in which this sort of interdisciplinary dialogue can begin to happen.
It's very exciting. AND - even if the initial applications of art historical criticism to olfaction end up in chaos and controversy - as long as everybody comes out of it agreeing that the question is important and answerable, then it's progress, IMO. I can think of nothing better than unending controversy over Chandler's initial ideas. It's like the publication of Turin's book - greeted with a storm of argument, yet we can look back and see how much those arguments benefitted us all. Same for Turin's revival of the vibrational hypothesis - the contest has breathed new life into the field, and recent results are just plain exciting.
post #109 of 128
11/5/12 at 7:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redneck Perfumisto
I think that bringing art history and fragrance together is more than possible - it's inevitable. But I also think it's going to take two or three scholastic generations merely to get on a strong footing. Perfumers take 7 years to train - add in art history and do the math. And say a prayer for anybody who chooses to tackle the neurological aspects of the art.
I think that bringing art history and fragrance together is more than possible - it's inevitable. But I also think it's going to take two or three scholastic generations merely to get on a strong footing. Perfumers take 7 years to train - add in art history and do the math. And say a prayer for anybody who chooses to tackle the neurological aspects of the art.
Well said. The training to be a serious art historian takes about 8 years. A serious art historian needs a BAFA not a BA, so that means abut 30 semester hours of art history, about 18 semester hours of studio art for art majors (torture!), 12 semester hours of an appropriate foreign language, plus courses in western civilization and music history. A fair number of art history majors (like me) find it really difficult to compete with the talented artists in the art studio classes so there is a lot of juggling involved to try not to have 18 hours of the gentle art historian's "C" on your transcript.
After that comes about four years in order to get a PhD.
post #110 of 128
11/5/12 at 9:11pm
- mr. reasonable
- offline
- Gender:
- 5,586 Posts. Joined 1/2009
- Location: Hong Kong
- Select All Posts By This User
Following this discussion (and the earlier ones) with interest, altho I haven't ordered any of the perfumes - will drop in and give the Diptyque another sniff.
Without wishing to be 'coy' - I just don't have the time to write a lot at the moment - a couple of thoughts.
1. I do wish the selection was more diverse. I believe Mr. Burr has a very modern American taste when it comes to fragrance and perhaps that is a plus given his home base and the potential audience - dragging a predominantly North American audience into this experiment. Or maybe he's just starting with light stuff and by the end there will be some chypres and orientals etc. altho by then I suspect the chypre will have ceased to exist entirely if IFRA and the EU regulators have anything to do with it.
2. The discussion on 'art history' and that whole side is all fine and good but strikes me as a little academic. Perfume, like music, is alive. I can understand the idea of using terms that relate to visual arts, generally 'static' pieces e.g. oils, water colors, sketches etc. and how the degree of understanding of craft and context et al will aid interpretation of these, but I would say music is probably just as useful and possibly even more relevant because it occupies both a static form (a recording, altho even then the piece evolves within that recording from start to finish) and an experiential one where a piece is performed live and interpreted differently each time it is performed and thus is subject to outside influences in the same way as temperature and other external physical factors will impact on how a fragrance is perceived by the wearer, or someone smelling it worn by someone else.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is a dimension to perfume and music that a piece of physical art does not possess - it breathes and it evolves over a period of time - it does not rest in a frame. In terms of definition, trying to pin recognized art history terms like 'post modern', 'abstract', 'romantic' onto a composition that might draw on ideas that span a century of perfume making seems a little odd to me but I guess it's as good as any - no serious quibble but when people get too literal and pedantic my eyes glaze over.
Without wishing to be 'coy' - I just don't have the time to write a lot at the moment - a couple of thoughts.
1. I do wish the selection was more diverse. I believe Mr. Burr has a very modern American taste when it comes to fragrance and perhaps that is a plus given his home base and the potential audience - dragging a predominantly North American audience into this experiment. Or maybe he's just starting with light stuff and by the end there will be some chypres and orientals etc. altho by then I suspect the chypre will have ceased to exist entirely if IFRA and the EU regulators have anything to do with it.
2. The discussion on 'art history' and that whole side is all fine and good but strikes me as a little academic. Perfume, like music, is alive. I can understand the idea of using terms that relate to visual arts, generally 'static' pieces e.g. oils, water colors, sketches etc. and how the degree of understanding of craft and context et al will aid interpretation of these, but I would say music is probably just as useful and possibly even more relevant because it occupies both a static form (a recording, altho even then the piece evolves within that recording from start to finish) and an experiential one where a piece is performed live and interpreted differently each time it is performed and thus is subject to outside influences in the same way as temperature and other external physical factors will impact on how a fragrance is perceived by the wearer, or someone smelling it worn by someone else.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is a dimension to perfume and music that a piece of physical art does not possess - it breathes and it evolves over a period of time - it does not rest in a frame. In terms of definition, trying to pin recognized art history terms like 'post modern', 'abstract', 'romantic' onto a composition that might draw on ideas that span a century of perfume making seems a little odd to me but I guess it's as good as any - no serious quibble but when people get too literal and pedantic my eyes glaze over.
post #111 of 128
11/5/12 at 10:08pm
- MonkeyBars
- online
- Gender:
-
- 3,631 Posts. Joined 5/2011
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
- Select All Posts By This User
post #112 of 128
11/6/12 at 1:33pm
- Redneck Perfumisto
- offline
- Gender:
- Trader Feedback: +38
- Loving C(h)oco Noir!
-
- 10,235 Posts. Joined 2/2008
- Location: Spiritually, Kansas
- Select All Posts By This User
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babsvs
I need to apologize to the fine people on this board and to Mr. Burr as well. I can be very passionate about the things I love, and that passion makes me unbearable and sour.
My apologies,
Barbara
I need to apologize to the fine people on this board and to Mr. Burr as well. I can be very passionate about the things I love, and that passion makes me unbearable and sour.
My apologies,
Barbara
No need to apologize, Barbara; you've given us your honest opinions, and there should never be a need to apologize for that. Unbearable and sour? I think not! Protective of a field you love? Perhaps.
I often find myself in a similar situation regarding chemistry here. After studying for a decade, and then working for over 25 years in the chemical industry, I sometimes feel a bit protective when people talk about it rather loosely here. I've learned with time to bite my tongue and let the loose, the harmless, and the well-intentioned errors all slide without comment. Not so much from giving up, but rather because - honestly - there is SO much more *enthusiasm* about chemistry here, than there is in almost any other public venue (except perhaps druggie forums, which are basically the dark side of our force). People here actually care what an aldehyde is - something that I find remarkable! People here are quite eager to learn about chemistry, and they are equally eager to learn about art.
I think you should feel happy and welcome to give your opinions, just as much as Chandler and the rest of us give ours. And given your highly relevant training and background, I think that all of us would be very grateful to continue hearing from you!
post #114 of 128
11/7/12 at 7:04pm
- mr. reasonable
- offline
- Gender:
- 5,586 Posts. Joined 1/2009
- Location: Hong Kong
- Select All Posts By This User
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babsvs
I need to apologize to the fine people on this board and to Mr. Burr as well. I can be very passionate about the things I love, and that passion makes me unbearable and sour.
My apologies,
Barbara
I need to apologize to the fine people on this board and to Mr. Burr as well. I can be very passionate about the things I love, and that passion makes me unbearable and sour.
My apologies,
Barbara
I second, Red - please don't stop now.
Perfumers do have a language that they can use amongst themselves with a degree of accuracy - I have seen this mentioned by a few, and I think that is because certain terms and descriptions have become 'standard' within this quite small circle, and the fact that most of the pros have worked or trained within the same few companies.
However, when it comes to the more general area of historical and 'regional' criticism or evaluation perfumery doesn't have anywhere near the same vocab or recognisable frames of reference as visual arts or music - it all gets a bit self conscious. Given that it was only in the last 12 months that France 'officially' recognised perfumery as an art, it's hardly surprising that there is some catching up to do and I think this series of Chandler Burr's and the discussions growing out of it are valuable.
- Redneck Perfumisto
- offline
- Gender:
- Trader Feedback: +38
- Loving C(h)oco Noir!
-
- 10,235 Posts. Joined 2/2008
- Location: Spiritually, Kansas
- Select All Posts By This User
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. reasonable
However, when it comes to the more general area of historical and 'regional' criticism or evaluation perfumery doesn't have anywhere near the same vocab or recognisable frames of reference as visual arts or music - it all gets a bit self conscious. Given that it was only in the last 12 months that France 'officially' recognised perfumery as an art, it's hardly surprising that there is some catching up to do and I think this series of Chandler Burr's and the discussions growing out of it are valuable.
However, when it comes to the more general area of historical and 'regional' criticism or evaluation perfumery doesn't have anywhere near the same vocab or recognisable frames of reference as visual arts or music - it all gets a bit self conscious. Given that it was only in the last 12 months that France 'officially' recognised perfumery as an art, it's hardly surprising that there is some catching up to do and I think this series of Chandler Burr's and the discussions growing out of it are valuable.
Very well-said!!!
post #116 of 128
11/10/12 at 11:17pm
post #117 of 128
11/11/12 at 6:21am
- Somerville Metro Man
- offline
- Gender:
- 4,551 Posts. Joined 2/2008
- Location: Poolesville, MD
- Select All Posts By This User
post #118 of 128
11/12/12 at 12:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somerville Metro Man
Based on what Chandler has told me will be in the catalog for the exhibit I think that will be another piece of work to help define and frame future discussion.
I can't wait to see the catalog and hope it lives up to my expectations.
I'll know in a couple weeks.
Based on what Chandler has told me will be in the catalog for the exhibit I think that will be another piece of work to help define and frame future discussion.
I can't wait to see the catalog and hope it lives up to my expectations.
I'll know in a couple weeks.
Not sure what you're saying Metro Man. Don't want to rock the boat. Does he want us to wait for him before we have any further chats?
post #119 of 128
11/13/12 at 6:01pm
- Somerville Metro Man
- offline
- Gender:
- 4,551 Posts. Joined 2/2008
- Location: Poolesville, MD
- Select All Posts By This User
Just saying that I am looking forward to the catalog as a potential reference.
Never any comment or sentiment meant to curtail any conversation.
Plus waiting for Chandler is a lot like waiting for Godot although Chandler does eventually show up.
so play away Estragon with whatever conversation you had in mind.
Never any comment or sentiment meant to curtail any conversation.
Plus waiting for Chandler is a lot like waiting for Godot although Chandler does eventually show up.
so play away Estragon with whatever conversation you had in mind.
post #120 of 128
11/13/12 at 9:11pm
- Lian
- offline
- Gender:
- 1,872 Posts. Joined 5/2006
- Location: Santa Monica, CA
- Select All Posts By This User
I don't think art history and perfume work well together,right now, because perfume is fleeting and physical arts are not. How can you study a perfume made 300 years ago? You can't. So you don't know if what follows is a reaction to it or a continuation of a theme.
It would have to be built up and people need to develop a shared understanding of what something means. Also throwing around terms like Romantic without explaining what the Romantic attributes are and how to translate them to perfume makes no sense to me either.
Sometimes I just want to enjoy perfume without getting too analytical about it. Also a analytical expose on a painting never changed whether I enjoyed it or not, I might understand better why I didn't like it but I never suddenly wanted it on my wall.
It would have to be built up and people need to develop a shared understanding of what something means. Also throwing around terms like Romantic without explaining what the Romantic attributes are and how to translate them to perfume makes no sense to me either.
Sometimes I just want to enjoy perfume without getting too analytical about it. Also a analytical expose on a painting never changed whether I enjoyed it or not, I might understand better why I didn't like it but I never suddenly wanted it on my wall.
Return Home
Back to Forum: Fragrance Industry and General Fragrance Discussion
- Chandler Burr Untitled S01E05
Basenotes › Basenotes Forums › Fragrance Discussion › Fragrance Industry and General Fragrance Discussion › Chandler Burr Untitled S01E05
Currently, there are 777 Active Users
(80 Members and 697 Guests)
Recent Discussions
- › New Game: Answer with a song! 1 minute ago
- › SOTD: Wednesday, May 22nd, 2013 1 minute ago
- › Forum Specifc Board Subscription Not Working 2 minutes ago
- › Creamsicle Quest 5 minutes ago
- › What do you use as a car spray? 6 minutes ago
- › What Are You Thinking About Buying Next? 9 minutes ago
- › Ambergris 10 minutes ago
- › Aventus batch numbers 16 minutes ago
- › Smell This Shocking Flower at Your Own Risk 16 minutes ago
- › Old Spice batch numbers 20 minutes ago
View: New Posts | All Discussions
Recent Reviews
- › UR For Men by Usher, 2008 by silentrich
- › Nemo by Cacharel, 1999 by silentrich
- › Halston 101 by Halston, 1984 by LAURENLANDAU
- › M7 by Yves Saint Laurent, 2002 by L'Maison...
- › L'Homme by Yves Saint Laurent, 2006 by L'Maison...
- › Aventus by Creed, 2010 by del
- › L.12.12 Noir / Black by Lacoste, 2013 by Erok32
- › La Nuit by Paco Rabanne, 1985 by rbaker
- › Artisan by John Varvatos, 2009 by Augustmooninks
- › Private Label by Jovoy, 2011 by Jamethiel
View: More Reviews
New Fragrance Wikis
- › UK FiFi Award winners 2013 by Grant
- › UK FiFi Awards tonight. by Grant
- › Groups Guidelines by Grant Osborne
- › Buy, Sell, Trade Rules by Grant Osborne
- › Following And Followers by Grant Osborne
- › Search And Advanced Search Tutorial by Grant Osborne
- › Tagging Tutorial by Grant Osborne
- › Add A New Item Tutorial by Grant Osborne
- › Image And Video Tutorial by Grant Osborne
- › Subscription Tutorial by Grant Osborne
Home | Fragrance Product Guide | Forums | Fragrance Wikis | My Profile
About Basenotes | Join the Community | Advertise
© 2013 Basenotes is powered by Huddler Fashion & Lifestyle
About Basenotes | Join the Community | Advertise
© 2013 Basenotes is powered by Huddler Fashion & Lifestyle
