What do we mean by "good" perfume?

My wife and I were at a wine tasting in California and our hostess gave this definition of "good" wine. "Good wine is wine you like."

Yes, it's as simple as that. Good perfume is perfume you like.

But why then would Edmond Roudnitska spend all those years creating but a handful of perfumes? Why would he write about perfume so passionately?

The answer, obvious to thoughtful people, is that there are levels of taste and what defines "good" for the person at one level can be quite different that what defines "good" for the person at another.

We tend to think of these levels having a hierarchy. The more we know about the subject, the more sophisticated we become, the "higher" we regard our level of taste. People who see themselves at the "higher" level tend to dictate the rules of aesthetics. It's our human vanity.

I have on my desk an 8-1/2 inch high metal fabrication. I am convinced that some would regard it as an artwork and strive to discover its meaning. Indeed, it sits on my desk because I personally take inspiration from it through a sort of zen contemplation. I've even adopted the view that it's creator really is an artist and I hope to acquire additional pieces from him when they are available.

Yet I know the origin of this piece. I know that it was "created" not through purpose or design but rather through three days of arc welding lessons graciously given to a neophyte who just wanted to learn to weld. Perhaps its a little like "art" produced by an elephant with a paint brush. The result might be beautiful and through provoking but that doesn't make the elephant an artist.

I came across a blog entry recently posted by Angela stating "Good perfume, like good wine, isn't easy to love." I had made some similar comments in my Perfume Maker's Club Newsletter ( #71, January 31, 2011.) What we were both writing about was the training that defines "good." Angela's point, in which I am in agreement, is that the "good" is recognized because the nose (actually the brain) has been trained to recognize and celebrate the qualities that, to experts, represent the good.

But I've also taken (lightly perhaps) the point of view that this training is (at least for some so-called perfumistas) is simply Pavlovian. They have been trained to bark when they detect certain qualities -- the very qualities they've been trained to detect. The judgment of "good" is not their independent judgment. It's simply a response to their training.

Good perfume is perfume you like. End of story.

But look now, if you accept to some degree my Pavlovian analogy, what happens to a new and UNIQUE perfume by some unknown perfumer that falls outside the parameters of what perfume appreciation training has identified as "good"?

This new and unique perfume would have as much chance of being called "good" as would Van Gogh's paintings by the Academie. I once showed a sample of Toxic to an IFF veteran and he gave me a very strange look.

Like any art form, it's hard to approach perfume with a truly open mind. We rely heavily on our education. But, only by trying to approach perfume with an open mine and, perhaps, thinking less about what is good and what is not good and instead asking our minds -- our brains -- whether the scent is INTERESTING ... whether it can PROVOKE ... whether it can STIMULATE the mind and the imagination of the person wearing it ... whether it can do all this AND be beautiful ... only then can we begin a really deep discussion about the virtues of perfume.