Friday, December 7, 2012

FirstNerve Review: The Art of Scent 1889 – 2012

The Scent Stripped Bare by Its Curator, Even.

The Art of Scent 1889 – 2012 occupies the fourth floor of the Museum of Arts & Design on Manhattan’s Columbus Circle. The main exhibit is a large room with a white wall. Along the wall are twelve smooth indentations that from a distance look as if a giant pressed his thumb into putty. On closer inspection each has a narrow cleft at the bottom. The overall effect is vaguely gynecological. Lean into the shallow, curved opening and you notice a hole in the bottom. A sly reference to Duchamp’s urinal? A hiss and a low rumble of plumbing announce a scented air stream rushing to meet your face. It’s MAD’s version of a swirlie.

An explanatory text appears now and then beside the opening, backlit in white letters. The text is reproduced in a pamphlet that observes all the proper forms of an art show catalog: artist’s name, the work’s title, its date and provenance, and a brief description of its significance. Except that the twelve art works in question are perfumes. And therein lies the central conceit of The Art of Scent: its whiny, foot-stomping, insistence that perfume is Art.

A side room offers the same dozen perfumes in a more traditional medium—alcoholic solution. They are arranged in clear covered platters on a clear Plexiglas table surrounded by clear plastic stools. Labeled blotters are provided for dipping and sampling. (Unusually shaped, these are the capellini of blotters; they bring to mind the phrase pencil-dick bug f***er.)

Along the wall of the side room are five stations that dispense scent-sample cards from biomorphic protrusions on the wall. (They are suggestively labial in a Videodrome sort of way.) The samples consist of four accords from, and the complete formula of, Lancôme’s Trésor. Here a visitor actually gets to look under the hood and see how perfumer Sophia Grojsman built the fragrance. The accords (incorrectly equated with “mods” in the accompanying text) by themselves are stark and seemingly unrelated; their integration in the finished fragrance is remarkable, and vividly illustrates the complicated, combinatorial magic of perfumery.

The liquid versions don’t always match those wafting out of the wall, which were adapted to suit the dry delivery system. In particular, the wall’s Drakkar Noir was coming apart—a grassy note stood out and the impression was not at all like the (very familiar) commercial product.

The final piece of the exhibit is an iPad app that lets visitors pair an abstract descriptor with a realistic one to describe each perfume, and then projects a word cloud representation of the current tally onto a screen at the end of the room. Pointless but harmless fun.

All this spritz and tell has one objective: to sell the notion that perfume is Art. In a world where a crucifix in jar of urine and a sliced-up sheep in formaldehyde are considered masterpieces, this would seem to be a fairly low bar to clear. Yet, the exhibit huffs and puffs to make its point.

For example, the words “perfume” and “perfumer” appear nowhere in the catalog. This ostentatious omission is part of curator Chandler Burr’s puerile attempt to win the argument by recasting its terms. He talks about olfactory art, not perfume. He talks about scent creators and scent artists, not perfumers. He talks about patrons, not perfume brands. He slings a lot of hash about “aesthetic visions,” “abstraction,” “ornamentation,” “minimalism,” “hyper-realism,” “diaphanous quality of light,” and “21st century sensibilities,” but nothing about top notes or fragrance families. The idea seems to be that if he can talk about perfume in purely artistic terms, it must be Art. But calling it so doesn’t make it so.

Beyond sheer assertion, Burr’s only specific claim is that olfactory Art only became possible with the invention of synthetic fragrance chemicals in the late 19th century:
By freeing olfactory artists from an exclusively natural palette, they [synesthetics] turned scent into an artistic medium.
So if you didn’t have coumarin or vanillin on the shelf, you weren’t doing Art. Tough beans for Giovanni Maria Farina, who created Eau de Cologne in 1708, or Jean-Louis Fargeon, perfumer to Marie-Antoinette. And whatever ancient Greek, Roman, and Egyptian perfumers were doing, it wasn’t Art.

The odd thing about Burr’s claim is that it ignores the difference between a flower and a perfume oil. A pile of rose petals on the floor of a barn in Bulgaria does not a natural palette make. Petals must be distilled, extracted, de-waxed, filtered, and blended before the perfumer can reach for a bottle of rose oil. The same goes for the bales of patchouli, the crates of oakmoss, and so on. Once processed, these materials have an amplified, focused smell that, while it may be reminiscent of the source, is entirely novel, man-made, and not found in nature.

What’s missing from The Art of Scent, with its clean white walls and transparent furniture, are the messy, colorful worlds of commerce and fashion—the reason these fragrances exist in the first place. Consumers don’t buy Drakkar Noir to hang on the wall or admire on the mantelpiece. Yet in Burr World, Pierre Wargnye is an artist who woke up one morning in the mood to “violate” the “strict line between ‘fine’ and ‘functional’ fragrances.” The Muse told him to start with a shitload of synthetic dihydromyrcenol and the result was Art. In real life, the Guy Laroche people circulated a fragrance brief and Pierre Wargnye worked on it because that’s what his employer, a large, publicly traded New York corporation, asked him to do. And it became the “most significant and influential scent” of the 1980s because a lot of guys bought it. To wear. On their skin. To attract chicks.

You can stick your head in the wall all day long, but you won’t learn that at MAD. The Art of Scent 1889 – 2012 smells okay, but it’s a history deprivation chamber.

P.S. As a gesture to loyal FN fans, we brought the BurrOMeter out of storage, fired it up, and aimed the sensors at the show catalog.

Name Drops: 17

Aimé Guerlain
Ernest Beaux
Francis Fabron
Bernard Chant
Carol Phillips
Pierre Wargnye
Olivier Cresp
Jacques Cavallier
Annie Buzantian
Alberto Morillas
Jean-Claude Ellena
Carlos Benaim
Max Gavarry
Clément Gavarry
Daniela Andrier
Issey Miyake
Miuccia Prada

Bonus Points:

Perfumers: 14
French: 10
Designers: 2
Moguls: 1

Jean-Claude Ellena Deluxe Triple Bonus Points®: 3

Autre Merde Française Bonus Points: 4

Eiffel Tower
traditional French floral
nineteenth-century Paris
nineteenth-century French scent making

Le Capitaine Louis Renault Bonus Points: 4

shocked by

Total BurrOmeter reading for The Art of Scent: 55 milliburrs

Outlook: Clear skies, clear furniture. Smooth sailing: no friction, no traction.


Giovanni said...

Dear Avery, your post is great!
I can subscribe each of your words.
Perfumery is not art.
The only artist in perfumery is nature and Burr does a very bad work for perfumery.
The idea that perfumery become art if it is not natural is an epic fail!

Lucy said...

I haven't yet been, and I should go, which makes me feel a little reluctant, since I hate to mix a sense of duty and obligation with perfume, but I will get there soon. Thank you for the interesting review. I have said before and say again, the title of perfumer is a very beautiful one, and more rare and romantic than that of artist these days. Sadly if you want the title of artist you have to throw the notion of beauty as a necessary component to your work overboard. Art has other concerns, and very understandably so, in this day and age. Which I think was why so many artistically inclined people did seek out perfume in one way or another these past years; it was a way to stay connected to and experience composed beauty itself. There is still that hunger for such beauty whether that is the most important or relevant thing to think about right now or not. It will be interesting to see what happens next, and how this all plays out over time. The art world has been getting a little tired and weighted down with enormous amounts of money lately, so the engagement of the sense of smell and perfume materials as art materials may and inject some new and very necessary primal energy.

Avery Gilbert said...


Perfumery is a creative endeavor that has produced many beautiful achievements of lasting value. There are many artistic aspects to it, but these are not explored or evaluated in this exhibit, which is intent on forcing perfumes into an "art is what hangs on walls" paradigm.

Maybe perfume is art in the way that the Jaguar E-Type was a work of art. Beautiful. Inspired. Coveted. Fun to drive (wear). Shaped by the available technology. Stick one in a museum if you like, recognize the designers by name. But don't pretend cars were created as artworks for contemplation on a wall.

Avery Gilbert said...


Thank you for the thoughtful comments.

I agree--beauty is no longer an objective of art. (Being transgressive or shocking seems to be the current standard. Yawn.)

Capital "A" art has become hyper-intellectualized by both artists and critics. The conversation is entirely between them; the public is left to its own devices. As you perceptively note, perfume takes the place of capital "A" art because it puts the consumer (actual person who pays money to live with it) in direct touch with what the designer created.

Perfume as worn can be serious, light-hearted, mysterious, jarring, etc. It can be appreciated in as many ways as their are wearers. And enthusiasts talk, blog and tweet about their responses. This is a vibrant, living culture that the Art Basel crowd detests.

Burr's exhibit is deeply reactionary. It's an attempt to hyper-intellectualize perfume, drag it into the museum, hang it on the wall, and let him be in charge of the discussion.

Liz Zorn said...

I have not seen the show, and do not have any plans to go. I have for many years been on this trail of Olfactory Art. When I left painting ten years ago to devote more time to Olfactory works, the idea of it all being lumped under the title "Perfumery" was not something that I found acceptable. As I had created my own body of work, I was not in the least concerned that people would want to wear it. That was a bonus I suppose. Of course when creating something that can be worn on the skin, certain rules apply. Just as rules apply to painting. It is good to know the rules of structure, space and value, it is not necessary thereafter to apply them rigidly. It is my intention with my work that people have a choice. They can wear it, or not. I encourage alternative methods of enjoying scent. And have had much success with the small Olfactory Installations that I have mounted in my small Cincinnati studio. I have been invited to set up installations in public spaces, but for now I am happy with my situation. Having control of my ideas and the execution of them is paramount. Otherwise this would be a functional endeavor that I would soon find tedious and move on to something more challenging. Which is what attracted me to scent in the first place. The possibilities were endless. I have said many times and will say it again. Introducing the world to Olfactory Art through the lens of Industrial Perfumery is too limiting, as well the word perfume carries with it too much baggage for it to ever be relevant in the context of art. Also, I must add that it doesn't matter the word count and general pontification of reviews and criticisms if people do not have a true understanding of the subject. Which (for me) does not have to be an elaborate show, but something more intimate that gets people in touch with their sense of smell, similar to how painters learn to see color.

Avery Gilbert said...

Liz Zorn:

Thanks for your observations. You seem to be an olfactory artist in multiple meanings of the term: creating perfume qua perfume, creating scents just for themselves (wearability be damned), creating novel settings in which scent can be experienced, merging scent with traditional art forms, etc.

I’m interested in olfactory art in all its manifestations and blog about it on FN when the spirit moves me. My view is that a more artists would incorporate scent into their work if they had the means and basic knowledge at their disposal. That’s why I’m supporting Saskia Wilson-Brown’s efforts in Los Angeles to set up The Institute for Art and Olfaction.

And to your point, people need a venue in which to directly experience the intricacies of scent. It might be as simple as perfume appreciation (like an intro to wine tasting) or something more advanced and interactive. This fall I started giving workshops on The Art & Science of Synesthesia which involve scent, shape, color, texture and sound.

BTW Your name is one I have seen many times but until now didn’t stop to focus on. Now I’ll be paying attention.

Liz Zorn said...

Yes, this aspect of art appreciation I am in favor of, in the context of perfumery and otherwise. But at the same time keeping it to a place where people feel included and not intimidated by the conversation.

I had been doing workshops that involve color and scent where I would set up a class with unlabeled scented color cards. Everyone would smell the same card at the same time and give their evaluation of it. For something like grass, it was interesting how many people did not smell grass or even associate the smell with the color green on the card even though it had a predetermined suggestion. Although I was conducting the exercise, I felt at the end of it as though I was the student and the students were teaching me. So I have been thinking about ways to make this even more engaging.

I am moving into a new studio at the moment and have access to a large area that I hope to use for these workshops and installations in the future.

I hope you do well with your workshops. This is an area that I wholeheartedly support.

Ari said...

The Burrometer is AMAZING. So very pleased to have found your blog.

Avery Gilbert said...


Who says perfume and technology can't coexist?

And ditto re: your blog.

carmencanada /Grain de Musc said...

It's interesting to note that the scents on show were tweaked in order to be puffed out: in other words, they aren't "displayed" in their intended form, and that's not even mentioning the fact the older ones are surely reformulated. And thanks for pointing out that the Trésor "mods" are in fact accords: it's pretty flabbergasting that they should be mislabeled that way by someone who surely should know better. But then, switching labels around seems to be the whole point here -- who knew "perfumer" was a dirty word?

Speaking of labels, I think "reactionary" is accurate. If you're going to engage with art *today*, rejecting everything that is messy, colorful, commercial, body-related or, well, *feminine* about perfume puts you squarely in with the squares: it's so mid-20th century... It is also, as you note, a wilful denial of how perfume is produced, and how it's received. Despite the lady-bits-shaped display mechanisms, I'd even say it's a puritanical stance.

I'd add that when I discussed the curator's stance with an artist friend (one who is currently showing a retrospective at the Centre Pompidou, so no slouch, and with a fine-tuned nose to boot), he said: "Calling perfume art is actually doing it a disservice, since just about anything gets tagged that way nowadays".

Avery Gilbert said...

carmencanada / Grain de Musc:

Hello, Denyse, and thanks for weighing in.

“Willful denial” is exactly what’s going on at MAD: a filtering out of all history and context. If this is what’s necessary to make the case for perfume as Art, then what’s the point?

You raise the issue of reformulations. I’ve heard it said that today’s Chanel No. 5 is different from the pre-war product, i.e., much less musky/funky. For whatever reason—cost, availability, EU diktat—there’s been an incremental change in what’s offered to the public.

It’s like the controversy over performance practice in classical music. In Bach’s time A was tuned to 420 Hz, not today’s 440 Hz to which we’ve become accustomed. Plus we’re hearing it on metal flutes (not boxwood or ebony), and on violins no longer strung with gut, and so on. So which is correct? more authentic? I’m not arguing you have to play Mozart in a wig and buckled shoes, but the issue has to be confronted when you compare an historical series of composers (or perfumers). Just another issue ducked by MAD. Another failure to come to grips with perfume on its own terms.

carmencanada /Grain de Musc said...

I do own a substantially old bottle of Chanel N°5, pronounced in good state by Jacques Polge himself, and it is different... Is the formula a score, and are available/licit materials instruments? Is this an Argo vessel type of argument (if all the pieces on Jason's vessel are replaced over the years, is it still the Argo?).

I'd also say that the way perfume is appropriated by each wearer can also be considered performance. Though there is no reason why perfumes can't be conveyed in other ways, or can't be conceived as exhibition pieces -- as Liz Zorn does -- the particular perfumes shown at the MAD *were* conceived to be worn, to be part of people's personas.

Of course, a single exhibition can't be expected to treat every single aspect of perfumery.
But, yes, perfume does have its own terms, and shifting those terms to those of another field does not necessarily shed light on its specificity.

bradamante said...

Thanks to Burr we now have the Burr-o-meter. Without any doubt a great achievement. His magnum opus.

Avery Gilbert said...


What's making us nervous here at FN is the possibility that the BurrOmeter becomes a self-aware artificial intelligence.

AG: "Analyze the latest excrescence, BOM."

BOM: "I'm sorry, Ave. I'm afraid I can't do that."

Anne Chloe said...


I wish your post had been longer, it was so much fun to read. It's a shame that Mr Burr has been so rigid in his concept for this exhibition. Reactionary is the perfect word for it. It's quite disappointing considering he could have just as easily created something (more credible) along the lines of appreciating perfume as design (it is the Museum of Arts and Design after all). Your example of car design is an apt one. We admire and appreciate these things, but we do use them.

We could have learnt about raw materials, about the process; been given a snapshot of the world that the fragrance came from, and with a lightness of touch it would have been a fun exhibit. But one woman I spoke to there said she felt more confused about perfumery having seen the exhibition.

The Burr-meister doth protest too much, methinks (flying by the seat of his pants?) although it's probably better to not go down that path..! But then if you're trying to shoehorn your shaky idea, its flaws will be quite apparent. (As you point out, it's disingenuous - to put it mildly - to call the likes of IFF 'patrons.')

Thanks once again for being such a breath of fresh air in this often funky smelling world.

Avery Gilbert said...

Anne Chloe:

"appreciating perfume as design (it is the Museum of Arts and Design after all)"


Re: the confused woman--I overheard one or two conversations where it was all I could do not to jump in and give an impromptu clarification. These actually were the fabled "teaching moments," but sadly no teachers were available.

(To be fair, there was a young docent? jr curator? who gamely tried to convey the CB party line.)

Unknown said...

Loved the review, Avery! I'm late to this party, but I wanted to chime in with my perspective as an artist who uses smell as just another tool in his multidisciplinary, multimedia toolbox.

What stupefies me is Burr treating the term 'olfactory art' as an empty signifier waiting to be filled with meaning, when there is, in fact, a history of artists who used smell in their works dating back, at least, to the Futurists in the early 20th century. Scholars such as Jim Drobnick and Caro Verbeek are doing a lot of interesting working in this area, which has, for a variety of reasons, slipped through the cracks of art history. However, how can that scholarly and art historical research compete with a corporate branding campaign designed to represent perfume as 'olfactory art'? Especially when that branding campaign locates itself in the definitive scholarly domain: the museum.

Avery Gilbert said...

Brian Goeltzenleuchter:

Not to worry--we party to all hours at FN!

You make an excellent point. The MAD Curator is, in effect, trying to appropriate the term "olfactory art" to further his cramped and ahistorical personal agenda. And while he distorts modern perfumery to fit his concept of "Art", he casually bulldozes the history of actual olfactory art!

This is more than unscholarly--it's shallow and pathetic.

sherapop said...

Hello Avery,

I have never commented here, but I am a fan. Your Burralia are wonderful. I also loved your review of The Emperor of Scent, which I linked from my blog, the salon de parfum.

I was wondering whether you'd consider creating pdfs of the catalogue essays. I'd like to critique them at my blog, but I cannot justify investing $250. Okay, I just won't. ;-)

+ Q Perfume Blog said...

I am so late but I am jumping in anyways...

I have a very clear posture about perfumes - it is a PRODUCT with 3 clear elements - the fragrance (juice as some intellectuals like to call it), bottle and package.
I think that perfume creations are a form of liquid art, as I think bottle and package design is art too. So yes, perfume is a combination of 3 crafts. But perfume exists not because it is art, but because it is a product.
One does not buy a Drakkar Noir to place in the middle of the living room...

About the Burrometer - I thought it was funny in the beginning. Now I think it is bullying... Avery...not nice... :-(
Is Chandler THAT important to you or to the industry or to among scholars, that he deserves a tag in your amazing blog??? RRRRReally???

Did you read the Wall Street Journal?

...[A]n exhibition of scent is a fresh idea. Too bad "The Art of Scent" is so fishy. With elaborate stagecraft, it is more interested in making the case for commercial perfume as high art, with the rights and privileges accorded therein, than in revealing the artistry of perfume design. For all the hoopla, the show conveys even less than what you would learn walking through the ground floor of Saks Fifth Avenue—which, unfortunately, might be the point....

so you are not alone my dear... you are entitled not to like the exhibit, like many didn't. But sometimes I feel that this is

Love you always, Simone

sherapop said...

This is a response to Simone:

I'd just like to jump in here to say that criticism is not bullying. I've seen a lot of bloggers who seem to think that because Chandler Burr loves perfume, we should all love him and throw him hugs and kisses no matter what he does.

I have a different take. If what he does is truly inept, devoid of any actual knowledge and dismissive of true olfactory artists, then he is not helping the cause of perfume as art in the least. By exalting already best-selling perfumes as masterpieces, he is helping no one but big perfumery industry interests, and he may well be harming independent perfumers, given that consumers have finite wallet shares. I have written about all of this at my blog, in a piece called "Can We Talk About Art?" I hope that you will read my essay and comment about where you think that I've gone wrong.

So, no, I do not believe that Avery is picking on Chandler. I believe that Avery is standing up for truth and reason and against charlatanry and fraud.

By the way, do you have a copy of the catalogue, Simone? If Chandler's "work" is something other than corporate marketing, it needs to be discussed, but I have not seen any of his actual writings posted anywhere on the internet. I would be grateful to anyone who can supply me with pdfs of the exhibit book essays.



sherapop said...


The title of my essay is "Can We Talk? About Perfume?"

Here's the URL:

Avery Gilbert said...


Thanks for popping up on the radar. Your blog looks interesting. (And here I thought I was the only one who found Suskind's Perfume a bit disagreeable . . .)

I leafed through a copy of the MAD catalog in the gift shop but did a spit-take at the price tag. I'll send you a pdf of the pamphlet they handed out so you can get a flavah.

Avery Gilbert said...

+ Q Perfume Blog:

You and I agree that perfume is an artistic-yet-commercial endeavor. It might even be presented well in a museum. (I enjoyed the hell out of “The Art of the Motorcycle” at the Guggenheim in 1998.) We differ when is comes to the MAD Curator’s tender feeeeeelings.

As for bullying . . . I don’t publish ad hominem criticisms of the (former) New York Times Officially Designated Perfume Critic. When he publishes stuff that is trite, misinformed, pretentious or otherwise defective, I have no compunction in criticizing it. That he offers me so many opportunities is a misfortune entirely of his own making. Incidentally, the BurrOmeter (my patented NYTODPC-tweaking device) is an homage to “Log Rolling on Our Time” and other serial jibes from the late, lamented Spy magazine. (You know, before Graydon Carter morphed from satirical imp into one of the bloated, self-important NYC types he used to lampoon.)

Now, darling, can we talk about MY feeeeelings? How come you never ask me about MY feeeelings? Why are you so insensitive to MY needs? Waaaaaaaah!

Avery Gilbert said...


Speaking of frauds, I was going to illustrate my MAD review with an image called "Piss Blotter" but I didn't have time to . . . how you say . . . realize my artistic vision.

BTW you are welcome to use my handy trademarked term for people who are “truly inept, devoid of any actual knowledge and dismissive of true olfactory artists.” Here at FN we refer to such as person as a Noseur™.

sherapop said...

Thank you, Avery!

Noseur™ has joined my lexicon! ;-)

Bryan Ross said...

I've been railing on and on that perfume is simply a form of design (perhaps as such it can brush against other established art forms), but few listen to me, despite detailed entreaties to consider the validity of my position. Thank you for putting it into words via this insightful review. Well done. I want a BurrOmeter for Christmas.

+ Q Perfume Blog said...

Dear Sherapop -

I think very highly of Professor Avery Gilbert. As a professional. Not to mention that I love him dearly - if we would not be married, I would propose to him!!! He knows that too...

I have already cut Chandler's head before:

and this was before the opening of the exhibit at MAD.

I think Chandler is working his ass off to provide the bread now that he has a family to support. like it or not - he is a business man - and a good one.
I myself don't have good words to say about these new projects, but yet, I haven't been to MAD personally - so i can't really give an open opinion about it.
I have things to say about the background of the project - but that would be not fair to him, since he told me things in private. I can't really tell here - but I am not happy either I must say.
I don't have a copy of the catalogue because my money worth what I work for it - so I would not waste with something that does not say anything to me.

I like critics, I don't like a steady TAG with his name on, that every time he says something - BANG!
I don't like the BurrOmeter concept, sorry... I feel that it has a mean factor there... Tagging a person seems more than just critics...

You could be a lawyer darling!!! Hope you are not angry with me...

XX, Simone

+ Q Perfume Blog said...

Now Mr. Gilbert:

ooohlala!!! You want me to be more sensitive regarding you darling???
It will get us in real trouble...serious trouble...


But, if you are really into the mood of telling me about YOUR feelings, I am booking a flight to NYC tomorrow!!!

So by the end of this week we can cover all YOUR needs for starters... and the next we can start to cover MINE...

Love love love Simone...

and yes, Chandler tells me things in private...he calls cell you??? Please get jealous!!!

sherapop said...

My dear Simone,

I am not angry but confused.

You write:

"Chandler is working his ass off to provide the bread now that he has a family to support."

So that's what this is all about?

Call me a "lawyer", if you must, my dear Simone, but I believe that Tony Soprano had a family to support, too.

Or perhaps I should select some non-fiction examples? I'll leave that as a thought experiment for you.


+ Q Perfume Blog said...

He found himself a nice place to work, with $$$, a way to travel a lot, mingle a lot... one wonders if this is not just it - a JOB, a SALARY...

I take it Chandler left the NYT or "was left" THE NYT, to find himself another fancy title - curator of whatever...
I know you guys don't like him...but IMO I think it is brilliant to be successful at something you don't really understand about, write books about it, make money of it, and people can you even an expert and gives you money to curate whatever... It takes a lot of IQ to do so...besides...he can do it in more than 5 languages...

I rest my case by saying...many don't like him, but many would like to achieve half of what he did with so little...if I was a lawyer...wait! I used to be one...well, but I left the shark tank to live in a cloud of perfumes...
I also reconsidered my friendship with the so called curator... I have taken some distance... (that is for Avery to know)

Tony Soprano! I like you more now!!!
Sherapop you are super nice!!! :-)


sherapop said...

With all due respect, my dear Simone, I think that the jury's still out on Chandler's "accomplishments". lol


Avery Gilbert said...

Bryan Ross:

Every boy needs a BurrOmeter! We'll put in a good word with Santa.

So you are the notorious author of "The Slow Death of Basenotes", which I retweeted the other day via The Scentrist. "One Man's No-Bullshit Olfactory Perspective" indeed. Tell it like it is brother (and catch all the flack that comes with it!)

I like how you reach out to tackle intellectual issues related to fragrance, e.g., your post on "Scent Perception Is Largely Stationary . . ."
Makes me think I should do a workshop on Olfactory Psychophysics for Perfume Lovers.

Avery Gilbert said...

+ Q Perfume Blog:

Ladies, ladies! Can't we all just get along?

Seriously, Simone, your brief on behalf of the defendant is not very compelling. It reminds me of this.

What's the emoticon for "I crack myself up"?

+ Q Perfume Blog said...

Professor is already thinking of 2 ladies in tiny bikinis having a cat fight in the mud tank - NOT GOING TO HAPPEN AVERY!

As to "we" - after comparing me to a crazy teenager in youtube crying about Britney S - there won't be any "WE" for a very long long time...

You just lost the caipirinha+steak+Brazilian bossa touchie coupon...

so you know - I wrote a long response to you - erased it - in the end I just found myself thinking why am I wasting my time? - you just don't get it..
Chandler was never the issue here - you were.


Avery Gilbert said...

+ Q Perfume Blog:

*sob* Leave Avery alone! *sob*

+ Q Perfume Blog said...

Dear Avery and dear Sherapop, I got an e-mail from CB with a link where he is discussing if scent is art or not with art critic Blake Gopnik - it allows comments from 3rd parties too...I think it would be a great opportunity for you guys to jump in and tell him and the world what you think about this matter, his exhibition etc etc...
if you are interest I will send you both the link...
I will not comment there even that he invited me to do so. But you guys have time and the interest for that I guess... let me know...

sherapop said...

Thanks so much, Simone. I have been participating in the discussion (your link was probably to the original two posts--as of today there are 24 comments). Here's the link for Avery and his readers:

Avery Gilbert said...

Anonymous (June 5, 2013):

Sorry, but you appear to have mistaken this blog for the complaints department at Basenotes.