I am sometimes torn trying to pull myself away from developing perfumes of my own and concentrate on BUSINESS, looking over my (many) resources and focusing on putting them to work to MAKE MONEY.
The great majority of people in the fragrance industry are focused on MAKING MONEY. This is a JOB for them and they go to work to bring home the bacon.
But perfume creation itself is, or can be, an ART. And those who are artists with smells follow their inner muse regardless. WHAT they create is of more importance to them than what they GAIN through their creations. Some, most likely, have never made enough money in the SALES of their perfumes to pay the cost of the raw materials that went into developing these fragrances. They hardly notice.
In both worlds there are the extreme personalities -- those who are so focused on commerce -- or on art -- that they can't appreciate or relate to those on the other side of the fence. But when you take a closer look at MOST of the people on either side -- art or commerce -- you'll find that they aren't so enclosed in their own worlds as you might think. The "artist" perfumers, for the most part, understand the need for money. Without it they can't pursue their love of perfume making. And the "nicest" money for many would be money from the sale of their own fragrances. This money is (or would be) more than just utilitarian. This money is the public's vote of appreciation for their fragrance creations.
On the commerce side, most of the successful men and women in the business are successful because of their love for fragrance. They are people with taste who know the difference between the great and the mundane.
But the crossed relationships go farther. The commercial side DEVELOPS cool new aroma chemicals, aroma chemicals that open doors for creating beautiful new fragrances, fragrances unlike anything the world has seen (smelled!) before.
On the commercial side these aroma chemicals get USED, they get out in the world and thus they INSPIRE the artist-perfumer to think in new directions and, where possible, acquire some of these new materials to make use of them in his or her own ARTISTIC fragrances.
Likewise the artist perfumer is often inspired by the MARKETING ideas developed by the commercial people. Some of these ideas can be morphed into marketing tools for the smaller companies and individuals. Artists are not stupid people.
And of course we see the reverse. People in the commercial world feed off ideas developed in the artist world. After all, ultimately we are all presenting our products to the same great public.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Friday, April 2, 2010
Buy by the box
What are we buying when we buy perfume? An image, a vision of what it will do for us. A box, the attractive packaging that surrounds it. A scent, the fragrance itself. What are our priorities?
There was a time, when markets were smaller and a company's own name meant something, that one bottle design might be used for one scent after another. The bottle, by its shape and design, helped identify the source -- the company behind the fragrance -- and brought credibility to the fragrance itself.
I was reading a designer interview in a fashion magazine the other day. I won't mention the designer's name as a friend works for that person. But the designer, late in the game, had launched a fragrance for the house and spoke of it with great pride. Its creation was, of course, shepherded by the designer.
But also of course the fragrance itself was created for the designer by a well known (in the fragrance industry) perfumer working for one of the top five international fragrance giants. This is how designers get "their" fragrances. While they can create the graphics for the box and suggest the graphics for the bottle (although this is usually done by bottle designers), there is nothing they can do to "design" the fragrance except attempt to describe, in words, what they think they want and then to say "yes," "no," or "maybe" to the samples that are presented to them and perhaps, in words again, suggest modifications. "Designing" a fragrance is a matter of aroma chemistry, of mixing molecules, of sniffing and balancing one chemical ingredient against another. It is not a graphic or visual process.
Now look at the buying decision again. Clearly the first step is to be attracted by the star power of the designer. If you've never heard the name, the fragrance becomes just one more out of dozens of new fragrances competing with a hundred plus older fragrances. So being attracted by the name is point number one.
Next, before sampling the fragrance, you see the box. The more interesting the packaging, the more favorably disposed you are toward this new fragrance before you've had a chance to smell it.
Now smelling the fragrance would be the logical next step, IF you are already attracted by the designer's name and the fragrance's packaging. And at this point we hit a stumbling point. Is a sampler bottle available? If it is, is it clearly marked so that you can be sure that what you are spraying is in fact your designer's perfume? I've noticed at perfume counters that bottles are often unmarked and not at all in the shapes of the standard bottles for the fragrances they represent -- probably to prevent theft.
Finally we look to see if there is a test blotter we can spray in case both our wrists have already been sprayed with a competitors' offerings. Here, quite frequently, if we do find a test blotter, it will be labeled for a competitor's perfume.
Now that we have gotten all this out of the way we try the scent -- the perfume itself. But can the scent -- will the scent -- drive us to open our wallets and withdraw the all important credit card and make the purchase ... while the sales person, if she hasn't yet rushed off already, is still be trying to sway us toward another perfume that she has been encouraged to promote.
Do you see by now that it's not the scent that is making the sale? The scent merely tips us to pay or not to pay but the tipping point has been reached by other means.
Every so often a perfume does hit the market that is so compelling that we have to sample it and are likely to buy, by the reputation of the fragrance itself. It happens perhaps once in five years. Or maybe once in twenty.
There was a time, when markets were smaller and a company's own name meant something, that one bottle design might be used for one scent after another. The bottle, by its shape and design, helped identify the source -- the company behind the fragrance -- and brought credibility to the fragrance itself.
I was reading a designer interview in a fashion magazine the other day. I won't mention the designer's name as a friend works for that person. But the designer, late in the game, had launched a fragrance for the house and spoke of it with great pride. Its creation was, of course, shepherded by the designer.
But also of course the fragrance itself was created for the designer by a well known (in the fragrance industry) perfumer working for one of the top five international fragrance giants. This is how designers get "their" fragrances. While they can create the graphics for the box and suggest the graphics for the bottle (although this is usually done by bottle designers), there is nothing they can do to "design" the fragrance except attempt to describe, in words, what they think they want and then to say "yes," "no," or "maybe" to the samples that are presented to them and perhaps, in words again, suggest modifications. "Designing" a fragrance is a matter of aroma chemistry, of mixing molecules, of sniffing and balancing one chemical ingredient against another. It is not a graphic or visual process.
Now look at the buying decision again. Clearly the first step is to be attracted by the star power of the designer. If you've never heard the name, the fragrance becomes just one more out of dozens of new fragrances competing with a hundred plus older fragrances. So being attracted by the name is point number one.
Next, before sampling the fragrance, you see the box. The more interesting the packaging, the more favorably disposed you are toward this new fragrance before you've had a chance to smell it.
Now smelling the fragrance would be the logical next step, IF you are already attracted by the designer's name and the fragrance's packaging. And at this point we hit a stumbling point. Is a sampler bottle available? If it is, is it clearly marked so that you can be sure that what you are spraying is in fact your designer's perfume? I've noticed at perfume counters that bottles are often unmarked and not at all in the shapes of the standard bottles for the fragrances they represent -- probably to prevent theft.
Finally we look to see if there is a test blotter we can spray in case both our wrists have already been sprayed with a competitors' offerings. Here, quite frequently, if we do find a test blotter, it will be labeled for a competitor's perfume.
Now that we have gotten all this out of the way we try the scent -- the perfume itself. But can the scent -- will the scent -- drive us to open our wallets and withdraw the all important credit card and make the purchase ... while the sales person, if she hasn't yet rushed off already, is still be trying to sway us toward another perfume that she has been encouraged to promote.
Do you see by now that it's not the scent that is making the sale? The scent merely tips us to pay or not to pay but the tipping point has been reached by other means.
Every so often a perfume does hit the market that is so compelling that we have to sample it and are likely to buy, by the reputation of the fragrance itself. It happens perhaps once in five years. Or maybe once in twenty.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Aromatherapy, Aroma, and Perfume
While "Aromatherapy" is a modern term, there have been efforts to back trace its roots to traditional Chinese medicine and perhaps even aboriginal healing arts. Today's Aromatherapists generally maintain that Aromatherapy is about using essential oils for therapeutic effect and sometimes cross the line into naturopathy by suggesting that the healing power is in the oil itself (or the interaction of oil and human body) rather than in the aroma of the oil.
Laying aside the technical disagreements among Aromatherapists as to which practices are "genuine" and which step outside the bounds of "true" Aromatherapy, I think it is pretty obvious that AROMA can have a mood changing, therapeutic effect but if this effect is due to the power of the aroma, it makes no sense to me to think that therapeutic effects can only be achieved through the use of essential oils or so-called "all natural" materials.
I often find myself spraying or dipping a test blotter with a perfume I have created, sometimes even a commercial perfume I have purchased, and placing it in a holder in front of me on my desk. Why? For harmony and tranquility. To make me feel better while I am working. To "elevate" my mood. And this is clearly a therapeutic effect -- aroma plus therapy. From perfume.
Perhaps my love of perfume is based on the same principles as those of the Aromatherapist, although clearly we accomplish our goals through differing methods. I tend to go for "whatever works" rather than "this is how we must do it."
Funny thing. I think my approach to aroma therapy (separate words) is closer to that of the ancient healers of China. I suspect that the BEST of them were not so rigid about following rules and formulas but instead made great use of their insight into the full range of methods and materials in the world around them to heal -- and, for the best of them, this personal knowledge of materials and methods probably died with them leaving only the rules and formulas to future generations.
Aroma is a powerful communications tool that can bring our spirits into harmony or set them in disarray. Aroma can draw others to us, or repel. But the power is in the aroma itself, no matter how it has been achieved.
Laying aside the technical disagreements among Aromatherapists as to which practices are "genuine" and which step outside the bounds of "true" Aromatherapy, I think it is pretty obvious that AROMA can have a mood changing, therapeutic effect but if this effect is due to the power of the aroma, it makes no sense to me to think that therapeutic effects can only be achieved through the use of essential oils or so-called "all natural" materials.
I often find myself spraying or dipping a test blotter with a perfume I have created, sometimes even a commercial perfume I have purchased, and placing it in a holder in front of me on my desk. Why? For harmony and tranquility. To make me feel better while I am working. To "elevate" my mood. And this is clearly a therapeutic effect -- aroma plus therapy. From perfume.
Perhaps my love of perfume is based on the same principles as those of the Aromatherapist, although clearly we accomplish our goals through differing methods. I tend to go for "whatever works" rather than "this is how we must do it."
Funny thing. I think my approach to aroma therapy (separate words) is closer to that of the ancient healers of China. I suspect that the BEST of them were not so rigid about following rules and formulas but instead made great use of their insight into the full range of methods and materials in the world around them to heal -- and, for the best of them, this personal knowledge of materials and methods probably died with them leaving only the rules and formulas to future generations.
Aroma is a powerful communications tool that can bring our spirits into harmony or set them in disarray. Aroma can draw others to us, or repel. But the power is in the aroma itself, no matter how it has been achieved.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
"No Chemicals" equals "No Smell"
I heard it again the other day, from a woman who should have known better. She was selling a bar of fancy soap and she "explained" to her customer that this soap was made "without chemicals." I bit my tongue but didn't say a word. After all, she was a friend.
"No chemicals" means no smell. You can't have an aroma without chemicals. The nose can only smell chemicals. And you can't make soap (or perfume!) without chemicals. In fact, you can't make ANYTHING without chemicals. (Even your DREAMS require chemicals!) Chemicals are the building blocks of our physical universe.
Pressed, the soap maker might argue, "I use only NATURAL materials (chemicals). There are no SYNTHETIC chemicals in my soap and certainly no petrochemicals." Now the claim could very well be true, but it's interesting to look at its implications.
No perfumer is likely to question the proposition that natural aroma materials can impart a beauty to a perfume which no synthetic or combination of synthetic aroma materials can match. The reason for this, as every perfumer knows, is that natural aroma materials -- essential oils, for example -- are spectacular arrays of dozens or perhaps one hundred or more CHEMICALS, some of which can easily be identified; some of which can barely be detected as they make their appearance only in trace amounts.
Thus while we can name five or six of the major chemicals that give a rose, for example, its characteristic odor, the natural rose also has, within its aroma, chemicals we can barely detect, even with the most sophisticated equipment. And, as any supplier of essential oils well knows, the chemistry -- and thus the aroma -- of any particular essential oil can vary widely depending on soil conditions (moisture, nutrients, drainage, etc.), temperature, sunlight, wind and weather, rain or draught, altitude, growing and harvesting techniques, and, of course, processing techniques and technology.
Thus while we can name the major chemicals found in the aroma of a rose, it is entirely possibly or even likely that the chemistry of a rose grown on one side of a hill will differ somewhat from a rose grown on the other side of the same hill. This variability gives natural materials their charm but it creates challenges for the perfumer striving for CONSISTENCY in his or her formula.
While the praise of natural aroma materials makes perfect sense, the disparagement of synthetic aroma materials makes no sense at all. Historically, the development of synthetic aroma chemicals (which began in the mid-19th century) gave the perfumer a greatly expanded palette. As early as 1850 forward thinking perfumers were beginning to appreciate the contributions that might soon be made to their art by modern chemistry. By 1900 this revolution was well under way. By the last quarter of the 20th century, commercial perfumery was already "going green" ... years ahead of today's movement to "save the planet." Toxic aroma chemicals ("naturals" for the most part) that were formerly in widespread use were weeded out; synthetic materials replaced "naturals" gathered from endangered species, both botanical and animal. Older perfumers mourned the loss of some of their most beautiful and reliable aroma materials but they adjusted by learning to work with new, synthetic, substitutes.
Why then is "all natural" such a selling point? Wherein lies the prejudice against the work of wonderfully creative chemists and perfumers? While the best and truest users of "all natural" materials in fragrance creation are the first to acknowledge the technical LIMITATIONS of their products, a less ethical group of "all natural" promoters would like to suggest to the scientifically innocent that the fruits of laboratory chemistry are harmful, dangerous and (!!!) morally evil. Sadly, in a society uneducated in science (and chemistry in particular!) and willing to equate "technology" with "evil" (except when making use of it themselves), anti-scientific warnings of the dangers of synthetic aroma chemicals -- "petro" chemicals -- can elicit mind blinding fear.
Now let me be clear on one point. We ALL can have chemical sensitivities but these sensitivities have nothing to do with the ORIGIN of the chemical, of whether they are "natural" or synthetic. I have personally been overwhelmed by a very natural aroma material (lime oil) which I once spilled on my desk. Likewise, during the winter months when I work with my windows closed (mostly), the combined effect of the aroma materials I'm working with CAN get to me ... and I open the window! Most of us, after having a bowel movement, strive to fumigate the bathroom before the next visitor arrives, with fresh air or air freshener -- and feces is certainly a "natural" odorant.
The real SAFETY issue isn't whether an odor is objectionable. Rather, it is whether the chemical producing that odor is HARMFUL when used in the AMOUNT in which it is being used.
Yes, some guys overdo it with cologne. That bums out my nose too.
But when we talk about "harmful," we have to boil it down to a source material. To just say "I'm allergic to fragrance" or "I'm allergic to synthetic perfumes" seems a bit silly to me as the argument is too generic. Which fragrances? Which chemicals? Does the person really have a clue? Do they really care? Are they aware that some of the chemicals they are condemning might easily be found in any flower garden? Are they allergic to flowers? Or to ALL beautiful aromas? Can they really tell -- by their nose -- whether they are smelling a "natural" or a synthetic aroma material?
One of the great beauties of the nose is that, when working properly, it can be a warning device, to warn us of danger such as fire by detecting the aroma of smoke (to use a very obvious example.) But the nose can also expose us to great beauty, hence the world of perfume.
Not all perfume is "nice" perfume. Some perfumes stink. But others can be incredibly beautiful. A lot depends on personal taste but a lot more depends on the skill of the perfumer. Do you love or hate a particular perfume? Try closing your eyes and smelling it on a test blotter (or you skin). Wait twenty minutes and smell again. Wait an hour and smell again. What has happened over that period? Has the beauty of the fragrance faded? Or has it evolved into a new beauty?
Test without reference to HOW the perfume was manufactured or what ingredients the promoter claims. Let your nose be the judge. Develop your appreciation of the fragrance itself, not what people say about it. Graphic designers make bottles and packaging, advertising people make swell sounding claims. But perfumers make perfume and perfume itself can be appreciated, not by words but by the nose alone.
"No chemicals" means no smell. You can't have an aroma without chemicals. The nose can only smell chemicals. And you can't make soap (or perfume!) without chemicals. In fact, you can't make ANYTHING without chemicals. (Even your DREAMS require chemicals!) Chemicals are the building blocks of our physical universe.
Pressed, the soap maker might argue, "I use only NATURAL materials (chemicals). There are no SYNTHETIC chemicals in my soap and certainly no petrochemicals." Now the claim could very well be true, but it's interesting to look at its implications.
No perfumer is likely to question the proposition that natural aroma materials can impart a beauty to a perfume which no synthetic or combination of synthetic aroma materials can match. The reason for this, as every perfumer knows, is that natural aroma materials -- essential oils, for example -- are spectacular arrays of dozens or perhaps one hundred or more CHEMICALS, some of which can easily be identified; some of which can barely be detected as they make their appearance only in trace amounts.
Thus while we can name five or six of the major chemicals that give a rose, for example, its characteristic odor, the natural rose also has, within its aroma, chemicals we can barely detect, even with the most sophisticated equipment. And, as any supplier of essential oils well knows, the chemistry -- and thus the aroma -- of any particular essential oil can vary widely depending on soil conditions (moisture, nutrients, drainage, etc.), temperature, sunlight, wind and weather, rain or draught, altitude, growing and harvesting techniques, and, of course, processing techniques and technology.
Thus while we can name the major chemicals found in the aroma of a rose, it is entirely possibly or even likely that the chemistry of a rose grown on one side of a hill will differ somewhat from a rose grown on the other side of the same hill. This variability gives natural materials their charm but it creates challenges for the perfumer striving for CONSISTENCY in his or her formula.
While the praise of natural aroma materials makes perfect sense, the disparagement of synthetic aroma materials makes no sense at all. Historically, the development of synthetic aroma chemicals (which began in the mid-19th century) gave the perfumer a greatly expanded palette. As early as 1850 forward thinking perfumers were beginning to appreciate the contributions that might soon be made to their art by modern chemistry. By 1900 this revolution was well under way. By the last quarter of the 20th century, commercial perfumery was already "going green" ... years ahead of today's movement to "save the planet." Toxic aroma chemicals ("naturals" for the most part) that were formerly in widespread use were weeded out; synthetic materials replaced "naturals" gathered from endangered species, both botanical and animal. Older perfumers mourned the loss of some of their most beautiful and reliable aroma materials but they adjusted by learning to work with new, synthetic, substitutes.
Why then is "all natural" such a selling point? Wherein lies the prejudice against the work of wonderfully creative chemists and perfumers? While the best and truest users of "all natural" materials in fragrance creation are the first to acknowledge the technical LIMITATIONS of their products, a less ethical group of "all natural" promoters would like to suggest to the scientifically innocent that the fruits of laboratory chemistry are harmful, dangerous and (!!!) morally evil. Sadly, in a society uneducated in science (and chemistry in particular!) and willing to equate "technology" with "evil" (except when making use of it themselves), anti-scientific warnings of the dangers of synthetic aroma chemicals -- "petro" chemicals -- can elicit mind blinding fear.
Now let me be clear on one point. We ALL can have chemical sensitivities but these sensitivities have nothing to do with the ORIGIN of the chemical, of whether they are "natural" or synthetic. I have personally been overwhelmed by a very natural aroma material (lime oil) which I once spilled on my desk. Likewise, during the winter months when I work with my windows closed (mostly), the combined effect of the aroma materials I'm working with CAN get to me ... and I open the window! Most of us, after having a bowel movement, strive to fumigate the bathroom before the next visitor arrives, with fresh air or air freshener -- and feces is certainly a "natural" odorant.
The real SAFETY issue isn't whether an odor is objectionable. Rather, it is whether the chemical producing that odor is HARMFUL when used in the AMOUNT in which it is being used.
Yes, some guys overdo it with cologne. That bums out my nose too.
But when we talk about "harmful," we have to boil it down to a source material. To just say "I'm allergic to fragrance" or "I'm allergic to synthetic perfumes" seems a bit silly to me as the argument is too generic. Which fragrances? Which chemicals? Does the person really have a clue? Do they really care? Are they aware that some of the chemicals they are condemning might easily be found in any flower garden? Are they allergic to flowers? Or to ALL beautiful aromas? Can they really tell -- by their nose -- whether they are smelling a "natural" or a synthetic aroma material?
One of the great beauties of the nose is that, when working properly, it can be a warning device, to warn us of danger such as fire by detecting the aroma of smoke (to use a very obvious example.) But the nose can also expose us to great beauty, hence the world of perfume.
Not all perfume is "nice" perfume. Some perfumes stink. But others can be incredibly beautiful. A lot depends on personal taste but a lot more depends on the skill of the perfumer. Do you love or hate a particular perfume? Try closing your eyes and smelling it on a test blotter (or you skin). Wait twenty minutes and smell again. Wait an hour and smell again. What has happened over that period? Has the beauty of the fragrance faded? Or has it evolved into a new beauty?
Test without reference to HOW the perfume was manufactured or what ingredients the promoter claims. Let your nose be the judge. Develop your appreciation of the fragrance itself, not what people say about it. Graphic designers make bottles and packaging, advertising people make swell sounding claims. But perfumers make perfume and perfume itself can be appreciated, not by words but by the nose alone.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
How Many Ingredients Go Into A Perfume?
I was reading an article about perfume the other day and came across the statement that "a perfume is composed of over 1,000 ingredients." The article was a "warning" about the hidden dangers of perfumes and this was an interesting piece of misinformation as it would be tough to find any perfume that has been composed with anything close to 1,000 ingredients (chemicals) -- with the possible exception of an "all natural" perfume using a very wide variety of essential oils and absolutes which, if all their chemicals (many of which would be found only in very, very small amounts) could be detected and added up, the "1,000" mark might be in sight.
But in the real world perfumes are NOT composed of 1,000 or more ingredients. The writer clearly mistook the number of ingredients AVAILABLE to a perfumer (which today might be more in the range of from three to five thousand) for the number of ingredients a perfumer might actually use in a composition. The number USED is more likely to be in the range of from about twenty to one hundred but, even of these, perhaps six or eight define the fragrance and the others -- some used in very, very small amounts, would simply balance, blend and decorate the fragrance.
For the small, independent, perfumer working without access to expensive technical balances (scales) or an extensive "library" or aroma materials, the actual number of ingredients used in a perfume may even be LESS than twenty due to these technical limitations.
The great perfumer, François Coty -- whose perfumes and business acumen set the perfume world back on it's heels in the first decades of the 20th Century, used VERY simple formulas (by today's standards) because Coty lacked the years of training that are required to be a "real" perfumer. Yet Coty's fragrances went head to head with the marketing giants of his day -- L.T. Piver, Bourjois, Guerlain, and above all, Houbigant. It wasn't the number of ingredients he used, it was the way in which he used a handful of ingredients.
So ask the painter, "How many colors does it take to make a painting?" Ask the composer, "How many different notes does it take to make a symphony?" To make a perfume, the perfumer uses materials he or she needs to achieve the exact effect that is desired -- not one more, not one less. To err in either direction is to weaken the effect of the fragrance. The art of the perfumer lies in knowing what to put in and what to leave out. The best perfumers -- the great artists of perfumery -- are the most demanding judges of what belongs and what does not. I doubt that any great perfumer, living or dead, would have much interest in composing a perfume using "1,000 or more" ingredients -- unless perhaps they were gunning for a contract with some weird reality show.
But in the real world perfumes are NOT composed of 1,000 or more ingredients. The writer clearly mistook the number of ingredients AVAILABLE to a perfumer (which today might be more in the range of from three to five thousand) for the number of ingredients a perfumer might actually use in a composition. The number USED is more likely to be in the range of from about twenty to one hundred but, even of these, perhaps six or eight define the fragrance and the others -- some used in very, very small amounts, would simply balance, blend and decorate the fragrance.
For the small, independent, perfumer working without access to expensive technical balances (scales) or an extensive "library" or aroma materials, the actual number of ingredients used in a perfume may even be LESS than twenty due to these technical limitations.
The great perfumer, François Coty -- whose perfumes and business acumen set the perfume world back on it's heels in the first decades of the 20th Century, used VERY simple formulas (by today's standards) because Coty lacked the years of training that are required to be a "real" perfumer. Yet Coty's fragrances went head to head with the marketing giants of his day -- L.T. Piver, Bourjois, Guerlain, and above all, Houbigant. It wasn't the number of ingredients he used, it was the way in which he used a handful of ingredients.
So ask the painter, "How many colors does it take to make a painting?" Ask the composer, "How many different notes does it take to make a symphony?" To make a perfume, the perfumer uses materials he or she needs to achieve the exact effect that is desired -- not one more, not one less. To err in either direction is to weaken the effect of the fragrance. The art of the perfumer lies in knowing what to put in and what to leave out. The best perfumers -- the great artists of perfumery -- are the most demanding judges of what belongs and what does not. I doubt that any great perfumer, living or dead, would have much interest in composing a perfume using "1,000 or more" ingredients -- unless perhaps they were gunning for a contract with some weird reality show.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Non-Traditional Fragrances For Men
(Fragrances for men who don't really need a fragrance.)
I use fragrance for pleasure. No other reason. I give my wife fragrances for her pleasure, and the pleasure it gives me when she wears them. Does a man need to wear fragrance? Look how it's sold. If the man buys it for himself, it is because other guys have told him it's a great panty dropper. But more likely he wears it because a girlfriend or wife (hopefully not his mother!) tells him it smells nice on him. So he uses it. But he didn't select it. He didn't even know he would be "improved" by the use of her favorite men's fragrance.
Suppose you were free to make all the decisions. Suppose you could decide -- YOURSELF -- to use or not to use fragrance. Suppose there were no ads, no wives or girlfriends (or mothers!), no guy pressures. Would you wear fragrance?
I love fragrance for the way it smells. The aroma. My nose feasts on the beauty of (certain!) fragrances the way my ears feast on (certain!) music and my eyes feast on (certain!) art (and other things.) I love fragrance for the pleasure it gives my nose -- not because it helps me pick up girls, not because it goes well with my new suit, not because it will show others I have sophisticated tastes. I just want to feast on the aroma.
I've written a good deal about the history of perfume. I've used 4711 and Farina's Kolnisch Wasser, Fougere Royale, and Jicky. And Drakkar Noir, Cool Water, and CKFree. When I sit down to create a men's fragrance, I know most emphatically what I do not want it to be.
A first encounter with Toxic is likely to leave a person shocked. The thought is, "that's not how a man's fragrance should smell ... what was he thinking!!!" It's like a culturally sheltered person's first encounter with modern art. It takes a bit of mental adjustment. Then you begin to understand what's going on and appreciate it -- or you rush back to paintings of hunting dogs and ducks.
For me, I see an opportunity to create for men in a way that would make no economic sense for a commercial perfumery bent on making its numbers. For me, creating a fragrance I WANT TO USE MYSELF involves discovering themes in unusual places -- non-traditional places where classic perfumers would not dare to go -- and then using my mental impressions from these themes to build new aromas. Non-traditional aromas.
My way of looking at the world may seem strange to some but I believe in letting the fragrance speak for itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
