Approximations
“think of what you love most and try to give that to me”….
I came accross this sentence towards the end of my interview with Sands and was bridging this line immediately with another aspect that I encountered frequently in the last few weeks since the launch of Lonestar Memories. I am not entirely certain whether Sands had this in mind, but it turned out to be the right statement for me at the right time.
I will go in some details: When I create perfumes I use components that I like to work with. This does not mean that all the components smell nice in their individual state. Some of them smell rather awkward. An example needed? Iso-butyl chinolein; a leathery scent, somewhat synthetic smell, with some fouling, obnoxious side aspects, tricky to work as it becomes overpowering very quick, at quite low concentrations. And then, it is very useful and I feel attracted to work with it. Then there are scents that I do not use, although they smell for many noses nice and lovely, simply because I do not like them. Like Roman camomille, for instance: I do not appreciate its scent quality or I have not discovered its beauty yet. Bottomline: Every perfumer has a set of fragrances he/she loves and employs.
Thus, quite a few clients contacted me, asking me what it is that my perfumes have in common, why they seem to be created on the same ground. What could be called a signature might be, in a first approximation, an effect of likes and dislikes, of love and hate. In that sense, I give what I love most…and then -over time- I try to open up, to evolve or revolutionize what I create, by introducing new notes, notes that I did not dare touch and by combining notes in formerly forbidden way.
Now, love and hate as ruler for a perfumer’s fragrances, that’s a first approximation. A second approximation brings in a different set: The form which is defined by a set of parameters that are hidden inside the creator, eventually not known to the creator, but a form that reflects the creator’s state of mind somehow. As a significant part of the creation process is subconscious, the result -the created perfume, the formula and its manifestation as fragrance-will mirror this subconsious state of mind, too. This is certainly true for perfumes that exist as result of a selfish act of creation, residing in themselves, and are not effluents of marketing plans. This reflection of a state of mind (and body?) of its creator will change over time, as the creator changes, but there will always be a line that witnesses her/his personality. And in this sense, my perfumes are a fragrant picture of myself. And even reinventing myself, the way I compose and create, there will always be a little red line, that is the same.
In this sense, signature is something intimate, indeed.
In the end, I think, there is another way of saying what Sands said: “create perfumes that reflect your personality, allow yourself to manifest in a fragrance and try to bring this picture to my nose”….
July 19th, 2006 at 9:52 am
Andy, thank you for detailing here that the specific person means so much to the creation of the work appreciated. This is a contentious point in visual/sensorial art /culture and I assume in the creation of perfume as well–a very complicated point that, as with Feminisms and gender questions, we are all still in the muddled forefront of approaching (this is what I feel, there is no consensus as far as I can tell).
Theorizing one’s own approach helps in the dialogue!
July 19th, 2006 at 8:47 pm
Dear Sands
You see… your interview was much more bringing up comments thant the perfumer’s talk. I think this is a compliment to what you said!
Theorizing is ok, I think, a good and necessary thing to do … followed by action. And this is exactly what I plan to do as soon as this comment and a few others are out!
Thank you for commenting
July 20th, 2006 at 1:52 am
Andy, it’s so true we perfumers are subject to our preferences and dislikes. I have struggled to overcome the dislikes and truly appreciate the materials for what they can do in a blend, not what they smell like “out of the bottle.” Good example — ylang ylang. I detest it straight. However, when seeing how it was the common thread in many of my favorite mainstream perfumes, I persisted, using the Carles method, and have learned to appreciate it, and use it.
It is central to my Fairchild perfume, both in the blend and in the artwork I created for Riverside, which you can see on my blog. I even put the artwork on my business card.
And a big wave to Sands for all he contributed to the interview ;-)
July 20th, 2006 at 1:55 am
Now to the second part of your post, which I wanted to separate from the love/hate issue.
We cannot, as artists, *not* bring ourselves on both the conscious and subconscious level, to the blend. I would like to add the superconscious level, too, as when the collective unconscious picks up on a new element, let’s says saffon, or trendy ambrette seed, or, in your case, a new synth that is released. Never considered much before, perhaps not even thought about much, little whispers, as in the internet, or a glimpse of an article, or a list of notes in a new offering, often influence us a lot.