My theory: because perfume is a luxury good ($$$) and also has the ability to inspire strong emotion, people feel the need to validate its value and purpose in a grounded understanding like science. ie. It's so expensive because of these rare ingredients, or the reason this perfume brings me back to this strong memory in an instant is because of these brain functions.
Not many people are comfortable giving in to an emotional reaction to something without warning. But that's why perfume is also so alluring :)
This science-ification happened when skincare boomed and it's happening to fragrance now that perfume is becoming a huge economic runner in the beauty sphere. The difference is that skincare has a function, and fragrance's "function" is pleasure (another thing that we're weird about indulging) so these scientific validations are kind of like "OK, and???" to frag-heads and scent-fiends like ourselves.
I'm going to see if my local shop will indulge me in some unifldentified samples so I can smell without influence of language. I like that fragrance is silent.
Perhaps the enthusiast thought that she needed to talk science with a perfumer? Because you're a fragrance nerd, she thinks you're a scientist rather than an alchemist or sorcerer. :)
Exciting discussion points here! I do want to say that, perhaps the science doesn't have to be mutually exclusive from pure appreciation for the art and the artist? Just my nerdy-dumb thoughts ... but perhaps it only enhances the art?
Fragrance is an art that certainly stands alone in greatness without the neuropsychological overcoat, so do we need scientific babble to dive into or appreciate fragrance? Hell no! But for me, such discussion in no way reduces the experience of fragrance to a surface preoccupation with the biological reactions of scent molecules careening around our olfactory systems, triggering neurochemicals, blah, blah, blah.
I also like to tell myself this isn’t about validating the expensive vice of fragrance collecting (because in that vein, I'd refer my guilt-ridden self to the "this is wearable art and history" position); rather, it is about appreciating all aspects of the art of fragrance. The art in composing it, the art in wearing it, and the art in sniffing and contemplating what it does, why, and how. What it evokes. What it means to the perfumer and what it means to the wearer.
In my dumb opinion, the science mumbo-jumbo stands with all of the aforementioned art. These are both part of a whole and neither has the power to detract from the other. In my possibly even dumber opinion, deep diving into everything, including the science, only bolsters the ability of the scented arts to further rocket us to the edges of the stories, the worlds, the dimensions, and the outright ALTERED STATES any given fragrance might have the juice to take one to.
That all said, there sure as shit should be a lot more discussion and highlighting of fragrance in the way we readily write about other forms of art. Knowing what the perfumer was inspired by, what went through their mind as they conceived the idea and then subsequently composed it into physical reality ... YES! We need more of the nitty-gritty behind the logic and artistic license of the perfumer!
The journey of the perfumer as the fragrance comes to life is an important thing to contemplate because it compliments and catalyzes one’s own journey as the wearer/sniffer. But, dare I say more dumb stuff, mentioning the science is not diametric to the sheer beauty, story, and art.
Neurochemical activity of an artist is embodied in their art. A perfumer’s art comes alive as a fragrance that can be bottled and delivered to me for my neurotransmitters to experience and contemplate and enjoy whenever the hell I feel like spraying it … Now, of all the dumb opinions I’ve had so far, this may be the dumbest … but … there’s something extra special in the scientific sauce of scent perception that just elevates it beyond the equivalents – music and the science of auditory perception, a life-changing meal and the science of taste, etc.
As you said with fragrance being a painting in a bottle - with fragrance we can quite literally immerse ourselves in the work of art produced. But deeper still - we can immerse ourselves in the physical, scented embodiment of the artist's mind. We can play around in only that story, or we can also introduce concepts from our own bank of memories, emotions, thoughts, and beliefs. In all this, there's an invisible yet very physical connection between the perfumer, the innerworkings of their consciousness and the one that wears or smells the fragrance and the innerworkings of their consciousness. When I think of that part of the fragrance experience, I balls-to-the-wall nerd out, but not just on the process - also on the sheer wonder and beauty of the connections between the artist, the art, and the "beholder." We certainly don’t need to focus on all that brain process stuff ad nauseum … I guess I just feel that parsing the science of scent perception doesn’t have to be reductive. It’s something so much deeper and it works in concert with the more artistic aspects of fragrance to create a transcendent experience.
wow. thanks for the thoughful response. I hear you on a lot and agree that the science is interesting. I guess my point is, I think we are holding back perfume from being taken seriously as an artwork because of the overuse "wow isn't it so cool that the brain and sense receptors do this yadda yadda." theres just so much science/psychological mumbo jumbo preamble that for me it waters down the very frank discussion about what the particular fume we are talking about is doing. I guess I don't care as much about how scientifically Cowboy Grass evokes the Wild West - I want to discuss that whole world - the music, image, history, words, and meaning of the myth much more than the general science of smell (unless there are specifics relevant to the particular fume - like vetyver molecules leave a grassy impression on the skin for a long time due to their molecular stabilty?) To talk about Cowboy Grass and add in a bunch about how cool it is that the neurons and olfactory receptors do this and that turns the art into a party trick.
I agree that it may be interesting to understand more about the creative process of the perfumer however majority of perfume launches these days are driven by profit. Therefore the creative brief, in many (if not majority) of cases is simply “take this best-selling perfume, add a few inexpensive twists and make it cheaper to produce”. This is why we have a glut of flankers these days and perfume has become “samey”. But, yes - for the vanishingly few original perfumes out there, it would be fascinating to understand the creative process and inspiration.
If it’s a rant, it’s an uplifting rant! Thank you for a lovely read.
thanks Varsha!
My theory: because perfume is a luxury good ($$$) and also has the ability to inspire strong emotion, people feel the need to validate its value and purpose in a grounded understanding like science. ie. It's so expensive because of these rare ingredients, or the reason this perfume brings me back to this strong memory in an instant is because of these brain functions.
Not many people are comfortable giving in to an emotional reaction to something without warning. But that's why perfume is also so alluring :)
you'd be a great person to discuss this with. maybe I'm making a mountain out of a molehill!
This science-ification happened when skincare boomed and it's happening to fragrance now that perfume is becoming a huge economic runner in the beauty sphere. The difference is that skincare has a function, and fragrance's "function" is pleasure (another thing that we're weird about indulging) so these scientific validations are kind of like "OK, and???" to frag-heads and scent-fiends like ourselves.
very good point. Fragrance is functionally useless! :)
I thought about this all day.
me too!
I'm going to see if my local shop will indulge me in some unifldentified samples so I can smell without influence of language. I like that fragrance is silent.
Perhaps the enthusiast thought that she needed to talk science with a perfumer? Because you're a fragrance nerd, she thinks you're a scientist rather than an alchemist or sorcerer. :)
Exciting discussion points here! I do want to say that, perhaps the science doesn't have to be mutually exclusive from pure appreciation for the art and the artist? Just my nerdy-dumb thoughts ... but perhaps it only enhances the art?
Fragrance is an art that certainly stands alone in greatness without the neuropsychological overcoat, so do we need scientific babble to dive into or appreciate fragrance? Hell no! But for me, such discussion in no way reduces the experience of fragrance to a surface preoccupation with the biological reactions of scent molecules careening around our olfactory systems, triggering neurochemicals, blah, blah, blah.
I also like to tell myself this isn’t about validating the expensive vice of fragrance collecting (because in that vein, I'd refer my guilt-ridden self to the "this is wearable art and history" position); rather, it is about appreciating all aspects of the art of fragrance. The art in composing it, the art in wearing it, and the art in sniffing and contemplating what it does, why, and how. What it evokes. What it means to the perfumer and what it means to the wearer.
In my dumb opinion, the science mumbo-jumbo stands with all of the aforementioned art. These are both part of a whole and neither has the power to detract from the other. In my possibly even dumber opinion, deep diving into everything, including the science, only bolsters the ability of the scented arts to further rocket us to the edges of the stories, the worlds, the dimensions, and the outright ALTERED STATES any given fragrance might have the juice to take one to.
That all said, there sure as shit should be a lot more discussion and highlighting of fragrance in the way we readily write about other forms of art. Knowing what the perfumer was inspired by, what went through their mind as they conceived the idea and then subsequently composed it into physical reality ... YES! We need more of the nitty-gritty behind the logic and artistic license of the perfumer!
The journey of the perfumer as the fragrance comes to life is an important thing to contemplate because it compliments and catalyzes one’s own journey as the wearer/sniffer. But, dare I say more dumb stuff, mentioning the science is not diametric to the sheer beauty, story, and art.
Neurochemical activity of an artist is embodied in their art. A perfumer’s art comes alive as a fragrance that can be bottled and delivered to me for my neurotransmitters to experience and contemplate and enjoy whenever the hell I feel like spraying it … Now, of all the dumb opinions I’ve had so far, this may be the dumbest … but … there’s something extra special in the scientific sauce of scent perception that just elevates it beyond the equivalents – music and the science of auditory perception, a life-changing meal and the science of taste, etc.
As you said with fragrance being a painting in a bottle - with fragrance we can quite literally immerse ourselves in the work of art produced. But deeper still - we can immerse ourselves in the physical, scented embodiment of the artist's mind. We can play around in only that story, or we can also introduce concepts from our own bank of memories, emotions, thoughts, and beliefs. In all this, there's an invisible yet very physical connection between the perfumer, the innerworkings of their consciousness and the one that wears or smells the fragrance and the innerworkings of their consciousness. When I think of that part of the fragrance experience, I balls-to-the-wall nerd out, but not just on the process - also on the sheer wonder and beauty of the connections between the artist, the art, and the "beholder." We certainly don’t need to focus on all that brain process stuff ad nauseum … I guess I just feel that parsing the science of scent perception doesn’t have to be reductive. It’s something so much deeper and it works in concert with the more artistic aspects of fragrance to create a transcendent experience.
wow. thanks for the thoughful response. I hear you on a lot and agree that the science is interesting. I guess my point is, I think we are holding back perfume from being taken seriously as an artwork because of the overuse "wow isn't it so cool that the brain and sense receptors do this yadda yadda." theres just so much science/psychological mumbo jumbo preamble that for me it waters down the very frank discussion about what the particular fume we are talking about is doing. I guess I don't care as much about how scientifically Cowboy Grass evokes the Wild West - I want to discuss that whole world - the music, image, history, words, and meaning of the myth much more than the general science of smell (unless there are specifics relevant to the particular fume - like vetyver molecules leave a grassy impression on the skin for a long time due to their molecular stabilty?) To talk about Cowboy Grass and add in a bunch about how cool it is that the neurons and olfactory receptors do this and that turns the art into a party trick.
I agree that it may be interesting to understand more about the creative process of the perfumer however majority of perfume launches these days are driven by profit. Therefore the creative brief, in many (if not majority) of cases is simply “take this best-selling perfume, add a few inexpensive twists and make it cheaper to produce”. This is why we have a glut of flankers these days and perfume has become “samey”. But, yes - for the vanishingly few original perfumes out there, it would be fascinating to understand the creative process and inspiration.