Chandler Burr Untitled S01E06 - Page 2

Originally Posted by Redneck Perfumisto

I don't think I'm throwing in the towel, myself. I did see the exhibit in NYC, and my impression was that the scents therein were generally more clear-cut and more obvious members of their classifications, than what we got in the Untitled series. For example, calling Untitled by Daniela Andrier either Brutalist or Post-Brutalist makes sense when you smell it. The fragrance is (to my nose) constructed from olfactory cinder blocks - yet somehow made beautiful. Angel - Surrealist - no problem. And most of the others - they make sense. I still don't get Eau de Lierre as Photo Realism, but that's a tough call, IMO. I'm curious why Chanel no. 5 is not in your list - it was in the exhibit (also Abstract Expressionism, IIRC). Again - that and Jicky - no problem. In fact, the whole exhibit made sense, in its chronological change of styles.

But I would be much more hard-pressed to call the predominant artistic movement on any of the scents in S01. Much less obvious to me.

Originally Posted by patentgeek

I've been lurking and watching this experiment (I stopped buying during the S01E03 kerfluffle, really, I don't have time to deal with the Open Sky hiccups). But I've been thinking about this project and what the goals could be.

When photography was becoming more accepted in U.S. museums, John Szarkowski curated an exhibit called The Family of Man at the Met (iirc). And it was a very "nice" exhibit--people could take their family there on a Sunday afternoon and leave with a nice, glowing, happy feeling about it. That exhibit was skewered by experts, because it was too safe and was not representative of the media. The art-photographers of the era were doing more Lutens-like work (meaning darker and edgier than represented at the Met).

Maybe the motive behind safe choices for museum exhibits of this type (including Burr's and Szarkowski) is to get the general public thinking about accepting new media (perfume/photography) as an art. If we see, accept, and have a good experience with the exhibit, we're more likely to agree that perfume/photography is expressive and museum worthy.

So maybe the audience for this is the Sunday afternoon museum person? The fume heads are already converted? I'm not sure.

That's what I'm wondering at this point, anyway. I guess the Opensky project would allow Chandler to take more chances, but that doesn't seem to have happened yet.

Originally Posted by patentgeek

Maybe the motive behind safe choices for museum exhibits of this type (including Burr's and Szarkowski) is to get the general public thinking about accepting new media (perfume/photography) as an art. If we see, accept, and have a good experience with the exhibit, we're more likely to agree that perfume/photography is expressive and museum worthy.

So maybe the audience for this is the Sunday afternoon museum person? The fume heads are already converted? I'm not sure.

That's what I'm wondering at this point, anyway. I guess the Opensky project would allow Chandler to take more chances, but that doesn't seem to have happened yet.

Originally Posted by Birdboy48

I noticed that Chandler's video introduction for S01E07 was up today on OpenSky, but still no word on the reveal for #6.

Interesting that there was no change over to S02 with the turning of the year.

Originally Posted by Redneck Perfumisto

But I would be much more hard-pressed to call the predominant artistic movement on any of the scents in S01. Much less obvious to me.

Originally Posted by Perfume_Addict

It's there: Bal D'Afrique by Byredo by Jerome Epinette (coincidentally Mark's perfumer of the year)

I just had a chance to watch the reveal video, and now I'm confused by some of terminology. In the introduction of S01E06, Burr said it emanated light (a characteristic I immediately perceived upon drydown) but in the reveal he says its not "light filled". I know he was talking about diaphanous citrus scents when he said that, and I agree that Bal D'Afrique isn't a sheer citrus scent. But it leaves me wondering whether, by "Luminism" he's talking about light-filled or light-producing scents. Hmm.

I didn't really expect him to switch to S02 yet: it's only been about six months since S01 launched - I'm picturing a 10 or 12 edition series.

Originally Posted by PerfumePorMoi

"A warm and romantic vetiver inspired by Paris in the late 20's and its infatuation with African culture, art, music and dance. A mix of the Parisian avantgardism and African culture shaped a unique and vibrant expression. The intense life, the excess and euphoria is illustrated by Bal d'Afrique's neroli, African marigold and Moroccan cedarwood. 100ml"

Wowza. I get none of that from S01E06.

Originally Posted by Birdboy48

Oops, the reveal was back on Dec 29, six days ago. Duh. But when I looked at it on Youtube today, there had only been "12 views" so I'm probably not the only one who missed it.

And did he say it was "stupid, demonic and unhelpful" to talk about ingredients, and then go on to talk about some of the ingredients ? I'm with him about paying attention to the psychological impressions we get from perfume, but I'm not sure how good a policy it is to continue to bash the folks who tend to mention notes.

I am really glad that CB has taken the step to leave his own impressions to the reveal, rather than giving us too many of them in the introduction, and I hope he keeps that up.

I must say though, my favorite part was at 7:28 : "...does not in any way smell citrus (perfumer immediately puts strip up to nose)."

Although many of these things may not be to my personal taste, I'm continuing to enjoy this project, and hope Chandler will continue to urge us to reflect on our own "emotional response" to these things.

I don't think he'll consider us dolts if we did not instantly see this as a reflection of how people in 1920's Paris saw the African arts of that time.

At the same time, it's kind of a cool theme to work from.

Originally Posted by rubegon

Ikea wall art?

Originally Posted by Birdboy48

Oops, the reveal was back on Dec 29, six days ago. Duh. But when I looked at it on Youtube today, there had only been "12 views" so I'm probably not the only one who missed it.

And did he say it was "stupid, demonic and unhelpful" to talk about ingredients, and then go on to talk about some of the ingredients ? I'm with him about paying attention to the psychological impressions we get from perfume, but I'm not sure how good a policy it is to continue to bash the folks who tend to mention notes.

I am really glad that CB has taken the step to leave his own impressions to the reveal, rather than giving us too many of them in the introduction, and I hope he keeps that up.

I must say though, my favorite part was at 7:28 : "...does not in any way smell citrus (perfumer immediately puts strip up to nose)."

Although many of these things may not be to my personal taste, I'm continuing to enjoy this project, and hope Chandler will continue to urge us to reflect on our own "emotional response" to these things.

I don't think he'll consider us dolts if we did not instantly see this as a reflection of how people in 1920's Paris saw the African arts of that time.

At the same time, it's kind of a cool theme to work from.

Originally Posted by Birdboy48

And did he say it was "stupid, demonic and unhelpful" to talk about ingredients, and then go on to talk about some of the ingredients ?

Originally Posted by Babsvs

I've thrown in the towel. In art history, we do "slide comparisons" where we compare and contrast two pieces of art. For me there was always great electricity in this, as you had no idea what the pieces would be, and a very short (usually 10 minute) time period to write 4-6 coherent paragraphs justifying what you thought.

There is a lot of subjectivity in Art History. For example, their are ceiling paintings in a small village church in Las Trampas, New Mexico. I felt certain they were of Native American origin but the professor felt they were European. I went there, photographed them from a lot of angles and found a lot of evidence indicating they were Native American. My prof was intrigued.

If Mr. Burr feels that MMM Untitled is correlated with Post-Brutalist Architecture, I would like to hear and understand why. If he's justified the comparison, I apologize in advance. First, I am quite familiar with Brutalist Architecture, but not post-brutalist architecture. Given current feelings about wanting to take wrecking balls to Brutalist structures, is Mr. Burr making a joke? Is post-Brutalism going back to nature after taking the wrecking ball to the offending structures? I could definately see Untitled correlating to that. I like a number of Brutalist structures. I can see walking through the completely Brutalist U Mass Dartmouth Campus, which is set in a forested area, and see MMM Untitled as the perfect fragrance to wear - the light of green nature breaking through the concrete Brutalist structures.