An essay on art in perfumery
The issue of what constitutes art and what does not has been on my mind for years. Being an historian and having a degree in History of Art as well is no help though, because one would be amazed at the diversity of opinion in such circles as to what exactly would be the deciding factor. As perfumery might be considered an art form by us perfume fanatics, I wanted to discuss what exactly would define it as such and pose some questions.
I was reading an interview of painter and sculptor Fernando Botero -probably South America's greatest living artist today- given to Thanasis Lalas on Vima magazine the other day, which inspired this post.
Botero went on to give 9 suggestions to young artists which pretty much define the meaning of art to me. I roughly translate the suggestions and put my personal comment/explanation in parenthesis. Here they are:
1. Choose the right influence (meaning: the best ones! Get to know that great masters and get influenced in a constructive way)
2. Art should give some pleasure (he elaborates by saying he is old school in those matters and doesn't think that you need a PhD to appreciate art, it just "clicks" and makes you feel)
3. Develop your own sensibilities (ergo develop a theoretical thesis about art and its meaning)
4. Abide by your convictions (develop a personal style)
5. Be a rebel (innovation, what else?)
6. Look upon your work as if it is someone else's (objectivity is of paramount importance)
7. We all make mistakes (he goes on to elaborate that an artwork's main mistake is to have nothing to say in the first place, which is indeed much to the chagrin of a modern art appreciator)
8. Success is never complete (personal growth is tantamount to evolving in one’s style)
9. Art can be greater than life (What a great line!!)
In that maxim I see a very nice summing up of what art is really all about (to me at least). It should make a point, it should have something to convey, it should innovate and not rely in its self-importance, it should be evolving and growing, making the artist as well as the audience grow with it.
I think it applies not only to sculpture and painting, but to music, literature, theater, you name it! Hence I thought about perfumery, which although does have a commercial aim (since the product of the creation is to be commercialized through marketing, advertising and sales) it does retain an artistic vision, much in the same way that a designer kitchen appliance designed by Phillip Stark can stand on its own as a modern day art piece. (an “artifact” of a certain lifestyle, I’m afraid)
So a thing can have an aesthetic value as well as a commercial one, in that it can provide pleasure and to the degree that it does not break any other rule, it can be sold and bought.
JaeLynn (alias), a prolific writer and a poster on some of the fora I frequent said to me this great line and I quote:
“But then you start getting into the Frankfurt Schoolers versus Jenkins/Hills/et al, which is a darned fine row if I do say so myself. What constitutes "art" and are there divisions of high/middle/low? To put it fragrantly, is there (Frankfurt) or is there not (Jenkins gang) a quantitative and qualitative difference between a Lutens or Malle perfume and a Comptoir Sud or Britney Spears perfume? “
What could we say to that? What exactly differentiates a Serge Lutens and a Frederic Malle from a Comptoir Sud Pacifique or Britney Spears perfume, if there is indeed a differentiation?
Surely when one approaches the different lines there is some snobbism inherent, especially among those who are just budding into perfume niches, because, let’s face it, the persona of the celebrity promoting the perfume with his/her name on has an uncanny way of entering our subconscious in more ways than one, alternatively influencing us into giving the perfume bonus points or inherent flaws, depending on our perception of Ms. Spears or any other eponymous celebrity or designer for that matter. Because many designers are capitalising on their name too in order to sustain their couture houses which would only crumble to the ground if left to the moguls clients only (after all how many are those and how many gowns could they wear in a given season?).
Lump in that category too overpriced exercises in trends, like sickly foody smells in a hundred different variations imaginable or oils that purportedly have a secret recipe and are all the rage among the famous. They are nothing special appearing as something that could be. Perhaps their art lies in clever marketing, but maybe that is a science after all?
Only blind testing would provide objective data in that stratum and we know this is a utopia for most of us when testing those particular scents.
Nevertheless, the one salient characteristic of most commercial perfumes is their ability to appeal and be pleasant across the boards for initiated and uninitiated alike. By that I do not mean that they are great, fabulous, wonderful or anything along those lines, because despite their pleasantness they often fail to make one genuinely interested and involved, leading to the launch of another new one that will in its turn become obsolete after the 5-year-time frame that modern day perfumes work within. They are perhaps too boring and forgettable to compel us to renew our purchase, so we become “serial monogamists”: using the new scent until the juice finishes and then on to another. They do smell inoffensive and “nice” though and sometimes being composed by the same noses who make other niche compositions with often comparable ingredients might beg the question why they aren’t considered art as well, per dictum number 2 discussed already.
The Frederic Malle line, on the other hand, started with an artistic reference point from the start as perpetuated by their motto “perfumes without compromise”: Malle gave the chance to top perfumers to create something they really wanted with the best materials available given no commercial restraints and he, like an editor, would promote it and distribute it for them. Hence the peculiar and sometimes bold nature of such animals as the lush, bombastic baroque Fleur de Cassie by Dominique Ropion or the pungent, bitter minimalism of Bigarade Concentreé by Jean Claude Ellena. In correlating this to the criteria we talked about in the beginning, the Malle line displays no specific homogenous “style” but rather the individual style of his artists who may indeed “abide by their convictions”. However among perfume loving circles I have come across many people who although they like and condone the concept have not found themselves in love with a single one in the line, at least not enough to buy a full bottle of it (what is affectionately termed as being “full bottle worthy” ).
Serge Lutens didn’t begin with such a concept, however there is a definite vision behind his creations with sidekick nose Chris Sheldrake: evoking the rich tradition of the Arabian world, however interpreted in a completely modern way with modern materials and procedures. The results are not erratic as with the Malle line because the collaboration of those two individuals in the line (with the exception of Maurice Roucel on Iris Silver Mist and Pierre Bourdon on Feminité du bois) has ensured coherence of style which however has the disadvantage of not always hitting the right spot. Hence the passionate feelings most Lutens scents arouse in perfume appreciation fans, whether their remarks are mostly positive (Chergui, Fleurs d’oranger) or mostly negative (Miel de bois, Gris Clair). The amount of pleasure one derives is subject to one’s personal associations and memories, as is with the majority of scents, however there is no denying that these are perfumes constructed as an exercise in pleasure recalling an opulence and sultriness of a modern odalisque that is active in an urban territory.
In their elitist mentality though (which in my humble opinion hides a snickering marketing angle too) they go on and produce such shocking segments such as the mentholated top note of Tubereuse Criminelle and the urine-like sweetness of Miel du bois that greet you when you open the vial. That would divert from the pleasure aspect if only there weren’t segments that transport the senses and validate the best wet dreams of an incurable perfumeholic (the creaminess of Un Lys, the deep plush of chocolate-patchouli in Borneo, the sweaty rot of the candied fruits in Arabie).
And then one stumbles on contradictory quotes such as this one: "We don't care about celebrities at Hermès, it's the artists who drive us," Mr Ellena said. "I do this for me. If it sells, it's a bonus." The quote comes from TheAustralian.news.com on July 27th from an article about Ellena being in Sydney for the launch of Terre d’Hermès. Which left me wondering the obvious: if perfume is just art and not business, why travel to promote it?
OK, Mr Ellena, I forgive you the lapse this one time.
And you know, there really is nothing wrong with “not art” -whether that is in what we hang on our walls or watch on television or spray on our bodies. I don’t think it is an inherent snobbism on my part or anyones, to realize that there are differences in quality and value. I think living consciously demands it, that we are not blind consumers but have full knowledge of the machines that drive culture. Only then can we break out of the flocking mentality and make our own decisions. So some days I grab the Comptoir Sud Pacifique Vanille Coco because I want to smell like a coconut Tastykake. And some days pull out a deeper scent, a more meditative scent, or a more agressive scent because the mood just hits that this is what I would like to smell today as I sit in the office or go about errands or save a couple of preemies’ lives with a platelet donation or watch really trashy television.
I have a wierd headspace I suppose; in that liking and respecting can be separate feelings toward an object or medium. I may not respect everything I like or like everything I respect. ((With people however, there is no such dichotomy and the two are irrevocably joined. And it’s this which differentiates what is important from what ultimately is not.))
Jaelynn () - 28 07 06
Thoughtful, timely post Helg. Just to think, the forums and the ability to publish such an essay didn’t exist five years ago, even two or three years ago. The art, yes, the art, Spears et al notwithstanding, is reaching the masses in a manner never seen before, and it is refreshing and stimulating.
Malle and others are creating their vision of what perfumery should be, and we respond in some way, either emotionally or intellectually, with either affection or mere curiosity. I feel many of the releases are treated as a curiosity, yet, if well-composed, not matter how unusual or strange, can find an audience. That audience is having a void filled—a void they perhaps never knew existed before sniffing a menthol note introducing tuberose 
You didn’t mention natural perfumes, and the Renaissance of using only natural-source aromatics, which we do, flying in the face of mainstream perfumery, more niche than Malle or Lutens, more cottage industry, driven by artists with a passion, dipping into their own pockets for the pricey materials, toiling away in obscurity. Their passion to create art is perhaps even more astounding looking at the fact they have no “proper” schooling, don’t want to work for a big house or even Malle.
We’re on the frontier of something great, and I know that our art, while rattling quite a few cages of those unwilling to change (love those synths! or frightened by change actually try to quash us in our efforts. We love what we do, we’re getting wonderful responses, and it will be decades, perhaps, before many of us can afford to travel to promote our fragrances as Mr. Ellena does, but we’re very happy toiling away, creating our art every day. And that’s what it’s all about.
Anya () - 28 07 06
Jae,
thanks for the clarification and I do get your point. Sometimes the “non art” is perfectly fitting and acceptable. Not everything has to be high-brow.
Anya,
you’re absolutely right, of course. Thanks for your thoughts.
I do plan on writing about natural perfumery in the near future, because it is a subject that intrigues me, and in that respect we need to be in comminucation, so that I have a firm grasp of things before I embark on it. I wouldn’t want to make na injustice out of ignorance. (I also admit I haven’t tried any of your perfumes yet…or Ayala’s – maybe I should remedy that!)
perfumeshrine - 29 07 06
Such salient points you make! The last paragraph is particularly incriminating to the person who uttered that quote!
That list above definitely applies to all art forms. I’m not sure about choosing the right influence – it might be more suitable to say that it’s okay to have influences and to be inspired by them, it isn’t something an artist has to fight against or deny. But that doesn’t mean that you can plagiarise your masters to death. You’ve definitely got to make their elements inspire you to create something that solely belongs to you.
Snarkattack - 19 08 06
No trackbacks http://rpc.blogrolling.com/pinger/