You are the author of a perfume if your name is written somewhere, if there is a contract, a formula, a paper, a photo, a testimony of somebody who worked with you. Something tangible, material. People love legends and to spread them. The internet is the best proof for error propagation. But what you want to hear about your beloved perfume, its mythical and fantastic stories, doesn't necessary match reality.
Was François Coty a perfumer? Who composed Miss Dior? Who is the author of Coco? There are many legends, many errors spread unintentionally, but perfumes history is based on evidence, facts, data, research. In the second volume I'm updating, one of the most difficult task I have to deal with is the question of authorship. Putting the name of a perfumer near the creations, removing other names from the history, correcting the "authors", showing which perfume is original, which perfume was inspired.
Was François Coty a perfumer? Who composed Miss Dior? Who is the author of Coco? There are many legends, many errors spread unintentionally, but perfumes history is based on evidence, facts, data, research. In the second volume I'm updating, one of the most difficult task I have to deal with is the question of authorship. Putting the name of a perfumer near the creations, removing other names from the history, correcting the "authors", showing which perfume is original, which perfume was inspired.
This question has already been raised in Art history. It is known as the Morellian method, developed by Giovanni Morelli (1816-1891), based on clues given by details rather than the identity of the composition easily seized by imitators. This method, similar to a detective work, analyzes unnoticed clues, the unconscious traces which reveal the details of the artist. The company which produced the perfume concentrate is revealed by the chemical analysis. To this I add the theory of signs (icons, indexes, symbols, traces, etc.) adapted to odors and other elements I perfected in the recent past.
The perfume art in the XXth century can be considered at 80% an anonymous work. There is absolute no certain proof for the authorship of many perfumes because the original documents were secret and nothing, not even pictures or handwritten papers of the perfumers were available to study. From a rational perspective, the "creator" is as fictional as the title of the perfume, a ghost perfumer rather than a true creator. There are very few exceptions, like Jacques Guerlain, Ernest Beaux or those perfumes which were attested by those who personally knew and worked with the authors.
Because no written proof exists for many masterpieces and because proofs, if they exist they were never showed, anybody can claim the title of "perfumer" or "author". Unlike marketing, which uses legends to sell, art history deals with evidence. 10 years after I published the first work, I realize that there is a need to remove some names from History, other need to be corrected, other perfumes from the past need a new attribution. This is not an easy task, but the Perfume creation needs a more serious approach, a question which starts with the myth of COTY, more than a century ago. It is in many cases a detective work.
Until the fifteenth century, the artist as individual could be poet or philosopher, but, as professional, the artist lived in a sort of sanctuary belonging to a brotherhood with its own secrets and constituting a separate world. They received the traditions of their predecessors through initiation and the only judges they recognized were their teachers and peers.
"X, a secretive perfumer told you secretly that perfume Y, worn by your grand-mother, was made by perfumer Z, a history he heard in another secret lab. He asks you not to publish on a website the secret he revealed." These are the "facts" and the main reason why perfume was never taken too seriously. What I saw in the recent 7 years in Paris is a total mess. Now, far from the city, I can meticulously rewrite the history of this art which is as occult as a sealed bottle which doesn't unveil the odor before it is opened.
In art history, attribution goes hand in hand with art dealers - you pay more for a painting correctly attributed to an old master. Perfumes, when they are bought in auctions, it is often for their design, not the essence.
The art of scent exhibition in New York deals with many theoretical aspects of the perfume art I have exposed on this site for the first time or in my conferences, but a new century starts always on a solid ground - this is the historical aspect.
One should make the distinction between the "secret history" of perfumes and the "public". Public means being exposed, presented to the public in a written form or as an item in an official institution. I show items from my collection and their scent to those I meet and "revelations" (unpublished research), but this doesn't make the fragrant history of Rimmel, Jean Carles, Ernest Beaux public. Secrecy is influenced by intention ("I do not want to reveal") or by money (printed works and exhibitions need impressive sums). However, the moral standards for art history or art criticism are the same. The ethic which makes the distinction between a scholar and a merchant.
The historian cannot speak about Chanel No5 with the terms used by the marketing. There is version No1, No2, No3 and so on starting with 1921. An original creation traced back to a document or analysis and a modern perfume sold in 2013 with a very different composition. A formula which belongs to Ernest Beaux and a formula which has nothing to do with Ernest Beaux because it contains elements not available on his desk at that time, because the difference between the versions is bigger than the changes allowed by a fluctuating annual floral crop. You cannot put the name of a perfumer in a museum near an artwork which was not made by him. This is authorship in perfumes .
Absolutely any type of serious conversation about art and perfumes starts with the author. There is no such thing as the art of Chanel, Givenchy or the art of Dior because they are brands, either fantasy names (Lancôme) of names of designers who produce visual and not olfactory works.
Chanel doesn't create perfumes, Chanel is producing them, a huge and crucial distinction. And the modern Chanel, since 1970 is another subject because History has to make the distinction between what was said to the press and what actually happened inside the "secret" lab, between the perfumes made by Jacques Polge and those he never did or the role of François Demachy inside the Chanel lab. Who are the authors of Chanel perfumes since No.19 including that fabulous scent? Who is the author of Coco? Who signed Egoiste? Who is the real creator of the recent exclusive perfumes? How the Palais Royal ideas and Chanel formulae got mixed? The art of Chanel has a sense in fashion design, but the use in perfumes has only a commercial aspect - selling something using the attributes of ART in a commercial environment where the customer knows little about art in general and much less about the art of perfumes. You can experience this with Kilian whose blotters write - "perfume as an art". But Kilian is neither an artist, nor a perfumer. He is an entrepreneur with a refined taste like any other man in Renaissance who asked for a portrait from every artist exhibited in his private gallery. Speaking about art starts with the author, when he is not known, the work is either attributed or anonymous or simply "produced by". 90% of the perfumes produced before WWII are anonymous while almost the entire XIXth century perfume art is "fictional". When only few bottles are left and no original formula preserved speaking about the artists is like speaking about the ceramics of Atlantis. History is based not only on literary works (the modern expression is the "Press release") but also on scent, formula, analysis meant to establish the distinction between the "fiction" (what is presented to the public to sell the work) and the "reality" behind the work - who did it.
What does the perfume industry know about Aimé Guerlain? only 1%, represented by the reformulated copy of Jicky.
An industry of dreams has to produce and perpetuate myths, but ART deals with other aspects, a retrospective view based on other rules. ART starts with a huge budget because history of perfumes is like digging in the sand around a pyramid to find treasures.
A perfume is never attached to a "style" (expressionist, modernist, etc), but the author, his vision. That's how things start. Perfume art is not attached like an appendix to the "visual art history you know from high school". It needs to be studied. And once the authors are known with their biographies and works, a more serious conversation about style and artistic movement can emerge. A perfume is "expressionist" not because you love this word, but because you analyzed a huge selection of perfumes and authors, detected their influence, defined the term "expressionism" and drew a conclusion.
Order, reason and method inside a universe ruled by fantasies and illusions, this is what an Architect does.
Until the fifteenth century, the artist as individual could be poet or philosopher, but, as professional, the artist lived in a sort of sanctuary belonging to a brotherhood with its own secrets and constituting a separate world. They received the traditions of their predecessors through initiation and the only judges they recognized were their teachers and peers.
"X, a secretive perfumer told you secretly that perfume Y, worn by your grand-mother, was made by perfumer Z, a history he heard in another secret lab. He asks you not to publish on a website the secret he revealed." These are the "facts" and the main reason why perfume was never taken too seriously. What I saw in the recent 7 years in Paris is a total mess. Now, far from the city, I can meticulously rewrite the history of this art which is as occult as a sealed bottle which doesn't unveil the odor before it is opened.
In art history, attribution goes hand in hand with art dealers - you pay more for a painting correctly attributed to an old master. Perfumes, when they are bought in auctions, it is often for their design, not the essence.
The art of scent exhibition in New York deals with many theoretical aspects of the perfume art I have exposed on this site for the first time or in my conferences, but a new century starts always on a solid ground - this is the historical aspect.
One should make the distinction between the "secret history" of perfumes and the "public". Public means being exposed, presented to the public in a written form or as an item in an official institution. I show items from my collection and their scent to those I meet and "revelations" (unpublished research), but this doesn't make the fragrant history of Rimmel, Jean Carles, Ernest Beaux public. Secrecy is influenced by intention ("I do not want to reveal") or by money (printed works and exhibitions need impressive sums). However, the moral standards for art history or art criticism are the same. The ethic which makes the distinction between a scholar and a merchant.
The historian cannot speak about Chanel No5 with the terms used by the marketing. There is version No1, No2, No3 and so on starting with 1921. An original creation traced back to a document or analysis and a modern perfume sold in 2013 with a very different composition. A formula which belongs to Ernest Beaux and a formula which has nothing to do with Ernest Beaux because it contains elements not available on his desk at that time, because the difference between the versions is bigger than the changes allowed by a fluctuating annual floral crop. You cannot put the name of a perfumer in a museum near an artwork which was not made by him. This is authorship in perfumes .
Absolutely any type of serious conversation about art and perfumes starts with the author. There is no such thing as the art of Chanel, Givenchy or the art of Dior because they are brands, either fantasy names (Lancôme) of names of designers who produce visual and not olfactory works.
Chanel doesn't create perfumes, Chanel is producing them, a huge and crucial distinction. And the modern Chanel, since 1970 is another subject because History has to make the distinction between what was said to the press and what actually happened inside the "secret" lab, between the perfumes made by Jacques Polge and those he never did or the role of François Demachy inside the Chanel lab. Who are the authors of Chanel perfumes since No.19 including that fabulous scent? Who is the author of Coco? Who signed Egoiste? Who is the real creator of the recent exclusive perfumes? How the Palais Royal ideas and Chanel formulae got mixed? The art of Chanel has a sense in fashion design, but the use in perfumes has only a commercial aspect - selling something using the attributes of ART in a commercial environment where the customer knows little about art in general and much less about the art of perfumes. You can experience this with Kilian whose blotters write - "perfume as an art". But Kilian is neither an artist, nor a perfumer. He is an entrepreneur with a refined taste like any other man in Renaissance who asked for a portrait from every artist exhibited in his private gallery. Speaking about art starts with the author, when he is not known, the work is either attributed or anonymous or simply "produced by". 90% of the perfumes produced before WWII are anonymous while almost the entire XIXth century perfume art is "fictional". When only few bottles are left and no original formula preserved speaking about the artists is like speaking about the ceramics of Atlantis. History is based not only on literary works (the modern expression is the "Press release") but also on scent, formula, analysis meant to establish the distinction between the "fiction" (what is presented to the public to sell the work) and the "reality" behind the work - who did it.
What does the perfume industry know about Aimé Guerlain? only 1%, represented by the reformulated copy of Jicky.
An industry of dreams has to produce and perpetuate myths, but ART deals with other aspects, a retrospective view based on other rules. ART starts with a huge budget because history of perfumes is like digging in the sand around a pyramid to find treasures.
A perfume is never attached to a "style" (expressionist, modernist, etc), but the author, his vision. That's how things start. Perfume art is not attached like an appendix to the "visual art history you know from high school". It needs to be studied. And once the authors are known with their biographies and works, a more serious conversation about style and artistic movement can emerge. A perfume is "expressionist" not because you love this word, but because you analyzed a huge selection of perfumes and authors, detected their influence, defined the term "expressionism" and drew a conclusion.
Order, reason and method inside a universe ruled by fantasies and illusions, this is what an Architect does.
SCENT PYRAMID
which reveals itself to those it may concern
which reveals itself to those it may concern
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
