This blog is a constantly evolving forum for thoughts on perfume, perfume-making, plants (especially orchids and flora of the Pacific Northwest) and life in general. It started out chronicling the adventures of Olympic Orchids Perfumes, established in July 2010, and has expanded in other directions. A big part of the blog is thinking about the ongoing process of learning and experimentation that leads to new perfumes, the exploration of perfumery materials, the theory and practice of perfume making, the challenges of marketing perfumes and other fragrance products, and random observations on philosophy and society. Spam comments will be marked as such and deleted; any comments that go beyond the boundaries of civil discourse will also be deleted. I am grateful to all of you, the readers, who contribute to the blog by commenting and making this a truly interactive perfume project.
I've been negligent about keeping up with the random drawings, but finally got around to doing it today. The previous batch of samples was unclaimed, so the winner gets a double portion plus some carded samples.
The winner of last week’s drawing is: JAMES WEAVER
To claim your winnings, please e-mail olympicorchids at
gmail dot com or leave a PM on our Facebook page.
Today is another opportunity to continue the clearing of my
stashes of samples. A lot of them are loose, so they don’t take up much room, at
least not individually. However, a lot of them are also on cards of various
types. Most of the cards are the classic “book”- type, with the sample hooked
over holes or inserted between folded cardboard protrusions along the spine of
the “book”. Others are just a card with a hole punched in it so that the sample
often falls out. That’s OK if the vial is labeled, but not good if it isn’t. A
few are in their own little organza bags with the name on a big card tied with
a ribbon around the top of the bag. These vials usually aren’t labeled. As a
consumer of samples, my plea would be, “please label the vial itself”.
This week’s giveaway will be a mix of 100 g of “normal” samples
and a handful of carded samples. To enter the drawing, all you have to do is
leave a comment about your opinion of carded samples.
[photo is from a vendor's pic that showed up in a basic Google search]
A couple of weeks ago I was surprised to hear a colleague
describe several perfumes as “sophisticated”. My surprise was due to the fact
that I personally perceived these compositions as being random mash-ups of common
materials without regard to balance or overall wearability, and not very
enjoyable. I’m sure we all have our own definitions of “sophisticated”, but the
first ones I found in a Goggle search are as follows:
1) having, revealing,
or proceding from a great deal of worldly experience and knowledge of fashion
2) (of a machine,
system, or technique) developed to a high degree of complexity.
Did the perfumes in question fit either
of these definitions? Not in my book. The first definition would imply that
they fit into some highly developed socio-cultural schema that is the result of
everything that has preceded them, and that each makes a coherent additional
and novel statement based on that body of knowledge. The
second would imply that they were technically well put-together in such a way
as to intentionally evoke complex thoughts, emotions, and other states. After
all, a perfume could be thought of as a “machine” designed to influence out
physical, mental, and emotional state in a pleasurable way. The term can even
be applied to the natural world. When I searched for images epitomizing the
term “sophisticated”, these wings of an African beetle kept popping up as an
example of a sophisticated design for flight.
In all cases, “sophisticated” is in
many ways a moving target, very much of the moment, but in other ways a fixed
quality. Junk is junk and kitsch is kitsch no matter when and where it was produced,
but does that mean that the junk and kitsch are not sophisticated? Is a perfume
with 942 ingredients more or less sophisticated than one with 15? Or one that
consists of a single material? Is a creation designed to shock sophisticated?
Is it sophisticated the second or third time around? Is a badly constructed
perfume made by an upscale designer house more sophisticated than the same
perfume made in a dilettante’s kitchen? This question is analogous to the
question I often ask myself when I see pictures on Vogue of designer garments
that look like they were failed experiments in an elementary school sewing class,
or embarrassing Halloween costumes. Can context create the aura of
“sophistication”, or is some intrinsic quality necessary? Can something be too “sophisticated”
to be of any practical use?
I know this is an unanswerable question
given that we cannot really even define “sophistication”, but to me it’s an
interesting issue to think about. Readers, how do you define “sophisticated”?Can a perfume be “sophisticated”? If so, what
would make it that way? If not, why not?
[First cartoon by Rube Goldberg; beetle wings from Wikimedia; fashion photo one of the first that I found when opening catwalk images on Vogue - it's good enough to make the point]
All written material and original photos on this website are copyrighted by the author of this blog. Prior written authorization is required for reproduction. You can contact me for permission at firstname.lastname@example.org