The bad taste or the taste used to be a "hot" topic in classic art theory / system. But since the postmodern era it became almost an obsolete subject like many discussions in the value area - the distinction between major art and minor art, between superior and inferior and the idea of discrimination. This year Jeff Koons exposed his works in the Versailles Palace and whatever you think about the most expensive contemporary artist, his colored creations made an amusing contrast with the detailed opulence of Louis XIV's apartments. Beaux arts magazine had an essay about kitsch, consumerism and contemporary art.
The fragrance world is not spared about the discussions on bad taste or lack of taste. It is not something you will find in books or printed articles, neither in conferences. But it is a word/notion that is often used in private conversations. We are too "polite" to speak in public of products in terms of good/bad taste. There is and will be no authority to say what is good/bad taste in perfumes. I am more interested to see what a is considered beautiful and ugly at a certain time because this can hold precious information about a certain historical time.
In one of the notebooks of Ernest Beaux he wrote about Narcisse Noir - "parfum d'une vulgarité tapageuse" - fragrance of the most striking vulgarity. Perfumers often speak in terms of taste when criticizing the creations of others. It's either bad taste or the lack of taste as the ultimate explanation for a fragrance that is considered mediocre. Often I heard comments like - "look at her, she does not how to dress, how would she create a good fragrance when she cannot chose a good shampoo", or " she was perfect for functional products and she put that insect repellent spray power into all her perfumes", "she's got a very provincial tastes in decoration, no surprise that her perfumes lacks finesse".... A perfumer told me once what he thought about Chanel pour Monsieur - "a masterpiece with a citronella note that is of the supreme bad taste". In the classic period, Tabu was considered by many perfumers as a supreme example of bad taste - it was the summum of vulgarity (but we know now the intention). In the 80's, Giorgio (despite its huge commercial success) was considered by many as both cheap and vulgar compared to French perfumes of the time. The next decade, Poison was considered vulgar in the context of freshness and youth spirit. Often taste conversations are surrounded by words like - provincial, bourgeois, aristocrat, cheap, vulgar, elegant, tasteless. It is never around good/bad smell (the word bad is not often used by a perfumer to qualify raw materials) and often around technical qualities. If several perfumers would start to speak in public Luca Turin's worst critics would sound like the most angelic description.
But apart what perfumers think or speak about taste in fragrance - as consumers, can we speak today about good taste and bad taste for fragrances, about tasteful and tasteless?
We speak very much today about individual taste and about the abolition of "taste dictatorship" in fashion and related areas. But "bad taste" as a notion (and not a quality) is present even more in our society and sells very well - think the sites/blogs/lists about well and bad dressed movie stars and how "what is considered ugly" invaded the net in sites with high traffic and well paid ads.
The fact that you love a movie / book / dress doesn't make it better, or will not affect very much the inner qualities - that is the classic idea since the XVIIIth century that "taste is a universal quality", opposed to the "romantic" concept of individuality "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".
Sometime this discussion is also about the power of the fragrance. When it's too strong and too characteristic it has more chances to be considered "a bad sign" as opposed to subtlety and refinement, when notes are very well blended (I am not very in favor of fragrances that smell like a concentrated fruit essence).
Few variation can be brought here:
- a "simple taste" (un goût facile) opposed to the taste of simple things. Not every "minimal" perfume is a "minimalist" fragrance as a philosophy - not every building with slab, floor and several pillars and glass is Mies van der Rohe;
- an "opulent" taste (un goût compliqué) would be the negative meaning of baroque style, where there are too many things inside;
- an "exaggerated" taste would be the preference for overwhelming notes, what in decoration is referred to Napoleon III period and bourgeois houses in Paris where a room was already like a museum with an impressive accumulation of things in great size;
- a copy of another idea but without its depth and with the precise idea to please.
The fragrance world is not spared about the discussions on bad taste or lack of taste. It is not something you will find in books or printed articles, neither in conferences. But it is a word/notion that is often used in private conversations. We are too "polite" to speak in public of products in terms of good/bad taste. There is and will be no authority to say what is good/bad taste in perfumes. I am more interested to see what a is considered beautiful and ugly at a certain time because this can hold precious information about a certain historical time.
In one of the notebooks of Ernest Beaux he wrote about Narcisse Noir - "parfum d'une vulgarité tapageuse" - fragrance of the most striking vulgarity. Perfumers often speak in terms of taste when criticizing the creations of others. It's either bad taste or the lack of taste as the ultimate explanation for a fragrance that is considered mediocre. Often I heard comments like - "look at her, she does not how to dress, how would she create a good fragrance when she cannot chose a good shampoo", or " she was perfect for functional products and she put that insect repellent spray power into all her perfumes", "she's got a very provincial tastes in decoration, no surprise that her perfumes lacks finesse".... A perfumer told me once what he thought about Chanel pour Monsieur - "a masterpiece with a citronella note that is of the supreme bad taste". In the classic period, Tabu was considered by many perfumers as a supreme example of bad taste - it was the summum of vulgarity (but we know now the intention). In the 80's, Giorgio (despite its huge commercial success) was considered by many as both cheap and vulgar compared to French perfumes of the time. The next decade, Poison was considered vulgar in the context of freshness and youth spirit. Often taste conversations are surrounded by words like - provincial, bourgeois, aristocrat, cheap, vulgar, elegant, tasteless. It is never around good/bad smell (the word bad is not often used by a perfumer to qualify raw materials) and often around technical qualities. If several perfumers would start to speak in public Luca Turin's worst critics would sound like the most angelic description.
But apart what perfumers think or speak about taste in fragrance - as consumers, can we speak today about good taste and bad taste for fragrances, about tasteful and tasteless?
We speak very much today about individual taste and about the abolition of "taste dictatorship" in fashion and related areas. But "bad taste" as a notion (and not a quality) is present even more in our society and sells very well - think the sites/blogs/lists about well and bad dressed movie stars and how "what is considered ugly" invaded the net in sites with high traffic and well paid ads.
The fact that you love a movie / book / dress doesn't make it better, or will not affect very much the inner qualities - that is the classic idea since the XVIIIth century that "taste is a universal quality", opposed to the "romantic" concept of individuality "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".
Sometime this discussion is also about the power of the fragrance. When it's too strong and too characteristic it has more chances to be considered "a bad sign" as opposed to subtlety and refinement, when notes are very well blended (I am not very in favor of fragrances that smell like a concentrated fruit essence).
Few variation can be brought here:
- a "simple taste" (un goût facile) opposed to the taste of simple things. Not every "minimal" perfume is a "minimalist" fragrance as a philosophy - not every building with slab, floor and several pillars and glass is Mies van der Rohe;
- an "opulent" taste (un goût compliqué) would be the negative meaning of baroque style, where there are too many things inside;
- an "exaggerated" taste would be the preference for overwhelming notes, what in decoration is referred to Napoleon III period and bourgeois houses in Paris where a room was already like a museum with an impressive accumulation of things in great size;
- a copy of another idea but without its depth and with the precise idea to please.
Can we speak today about kitsch fragrances or fragrances without any trace of taste/style?
Photo: Jeff Koons - Lobster in Salon de Mars at Versailles
Did you enjoy my article? Sign up for updates about new fragrances, reviews of artistic perfumes and exceptional vintage masterpieces. I would be very happy if you would consider joining 1000 Fragrances, throughRSS feed,GoogleFriend connect, Facebook (more personal), or any other way that appeals to you.
Fragrance is the 8th Art - Octavian Coifan - Le Parfum est le 8ème Art
