NYT Article: When Did Perfume Stop Being About Sex?

cheapimitation

Basenotes Dependent
May 15, 2015
Just came across this NYT article which touches on several points from recent discussions such as this.

Copied and pasted here since they have a paywall:

By Rachel Strugatz
June 23, 2022
When a new Yves Saint Laurent perfume came out in 2001, Tom Ford, the creative director of the house at the time, threw a sensational party at the Paris Stock Exchange, where he put a gaggle of practically nude models on display in a giant plexiglass container. The fragrance was called Nu, French for “nude.”
Linda Wells, the founding editor in chief of Allure and a partygoer, likened Mr. Ford’s soiree to a “human aquarium,” teeming with models “writhing about” in their underwear. It was like a ball pit one might find at a children’s birthday party, except bigger, alcohol fueled and packed with nearly naked adults.
“It was all these bodies,” Ms. Wells said. “It was all this flesh. It was like an orgy.”
An event like that seems unimaginable today, and not just because unchecked hedonism became taboo after #MeToo. The whole marketing ideal has changed: Most designers and brands aren’t using sex to sell perfume — and people aren’t buying perfume to have sex.

For decades, the marketing around perfume made seduction a priority. Fragrance was a bottled way to help someone find a mate, a construct that feels incredibly irrelevant since we now have dating apps, a more efficient and consistent way to find a partner than having someone catch your scent and fall in love with you.

“It just feels really old fashioned and kind of offensive,” Ms. Wells said. “Now we all feel like, ‘This advertiser is going to tell me how I’m supposed to feel or that I want to have sex because of their fragrance or that I want to become an object because of their fragrance?’”
Today, brands talk about fragrance in terms of places and how it will make the wearer feel. Smaller, niche perfume brands like Byredo or Le Labo are advertised as “gender neutral.” These brands don’t play to outdated gender constructs and singular messaging about sex and sexual orientation. It’s not a competition for which perfume is the sexiest; it’s about which one can elicit the strongest emotional connection.

According to Rachel Herz, a neuroscientist and the author of “The Scent of Desire: Discovering Our Enigmatic Sense of Smell,” perfume went from marketing “direct themes” like power or sex to encouraging a “personal journey.”
This journey could be one about self-empowerment or being the best “you,” which is what Glossier sells with Glossier You. According to its website, the scent will “grow with you no matter where you are in your personal evolution” because it’s “not a finished product. It needs you.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/17/...on=CompanionColumn&contentCollection=Trending
Other fragrances take customers on a different journey. Harlem Nights from World of Chris Collins takes wearers to a speakeasy with notes of musk and rum that evoke cigars, top-shelf liquor and 1920s nightlife.

So, when did perfume stop being about sex?

Evolving Gender Ideals​

Culture, above all else, has had the most far-reaching effects on the perfume industry, especially in the last five years.
Traditionally, perfumes were designed for men or women — rarely both — buoyed by multimillion-dollar campaigns depicting traditional gender norms or hypersexualized images. Remember the Calvin Klein Eternity ads from the 1980s with Christy Turlington and Ed Burns? What about that sultry Gucci Guilty campaign from 2010 with Evan Rachel Wood and Chris Evans? Both seem heteronormative in today’s cultural climate.
A younger generation with more fluid interpretations of what constitutes gender, sexual orientation and romantic relationships is leading the conversation. “Gender neutral” and “genderless” have become mainstream concepts, integral to fashion, makeup and fragrance, and no longer on the fringes.
An uptick in unisex and genderless fragrance followed. In fact, many of the niche and artisanal labels that have gained widespread appeal have never assigned gender to their fragrances. Byredo has marketed its scents as unisex since Ben Gorham founded the line in 2006. The same goes for Le Labo, Escentric Molecules, D.S. & Durga, Malin + Goetz and Aesop.
“Your gender, your nationality, your sexual orientation — it doesn’t matter,” said Chris Collins, the founder and chief executive of World of Chris Collins. All 12 of the four-year-old brand’s scents are genderless. “There should not be a distinction,” he said.

For global fragrance powerhouses, gender and romance are still quintessential to mainstream appeal. While Dior’s ad campaigns are not overtly sexual, the brand presents distinct feminine ideals through Miss Dior’s ladylike campaigns, which have featured Natalie Portman since 2011, as well as those gilded J’Adore Dior ads, in which Charlize Theron has channeled a Greek goddess for 18 years.

“Romance is not necessarily passé,” Ms. Herz said. It’s the representations of romance that are more abstract, she explained, because “things are less defined heterosexually” than they were a decade ago.

Why We Wear Perfume Now​

During the pandemic, with stores closed and limited ways to test perfume before buying, Suzanne Sabo, 45, from Levittown, Pa., “blind bought” perfume to treat herself. The first fragrance she ordered was Tom Ford Beauty’s Jasmine Rouge, which she discovered through an ad online.
“There was nothing sensual or sexual about it,” said Ms. Sabo, a grant writer at a technical high school. “It was so basic — it was a description of the scent. I felt like a new woman just wearing the perfume in sweats around my house. I felt like a million bucks.”
Ms. Sabo’s Tom Ford fragrance collection has grown to include Lost Cherry, Soleil Blanc, White Suede and Bitter Peach. “It’s not like we live in the wealthy part of town,” she said. “We’re middle-class moms who were stressed.”
Rachel ten Brink, a general partner at Red Bike Capital and a founder of the perfume line Scentbird, saw customers start to adopt this mentality several years ago.

The top response from a 2015 survey asking Scentbird customers why they wore fragrance was “how it made me feel.” Attracting the opposite sex was No. 6 or 7, Ms. ten Brink said.

Others use fragrance as a vehicle for self-expression. Carys Bassett, an I.T. consultant and cybersecurity specialist from Bath, England, wears perfume to stand out, like a statement coat or shoes.
“I like to have my presence lingering after I’ve left the room,” Ms. Bassett, 37, said. “I’m not that fussed by sex. I like to make a statement.”

The Rise of Artisanal Perfume​

Smaller, independent brands are often more creative in their approach to perfume making, highlighting individual ingredients and notes or using a story to attract customers. Fragrances are often stronger, bolder and more expensive than department store stalwarts synonymous with a “free gift with purchase.”
“Artisanal scents have always been more about the scent and the notes and the ingredients, and less about the image,” said Larissa Jensen, a beauty industry analyst at the NPD Group. Fragrance bottles with lemons, oranges or lavender are the “visual descriptors” drawing people in, she said. “You’re not looking at an ad that has just a man’s naked butt.”
Dina Fanella, a 50-year-old special education teacher in Las Vegas, seeks out singular fragrances. She doesn’t like mass-produced perfume for the same reason she doesn’t like big hotels: It feels generic.

“I began to choose small, handcrafted fragrances that had more pure and exotic combinations,” Ms. Fanella said.

Her interest in fragrance predates the pandemic. She discovered independent perfume makers like the Sage Goddess and the online community House of Oshun, whose founder, Lulu Eye Love, makes her favorite scent, Shut Up and Kiss Me.
For Ms. Sabo, Maison Francis Kurkdjian was her entree into the world of pricey artisanal perfume. The label, through a collaboration with Baccarat, had some viral TikTok fame.
“Of course I have Baccarat Rouge 540,” she said, as if everyone should know that. Ms. Sabo discovered the fragrance on TikTok and bought two bottles, a $300 eau de parfum and a more concentrated $425 “parfum extrait,” because a YouTube review said that “you’ll smell this in every high-end restaurant in Manhattan.”
“At the time we couldn’t even go to a restaurant,” she joked. “We were ordering takeout from DoorDash.”
Before the pandemic, Ms. Sabo had never spent more than $100 on a perfume.
 

Rodolfo

Basenotes Junkie
Jun 2, 2008
Thanks for the link. I personally find most of what is expressed in the article superficial, generalizing and disgusting.
After reading it I have an inexplicable desire to run naked and free through the streets of New York.
But hey, that's my interpretation. Interpretation is not the same as truth. Although some seem to act as if it were.
 
Last edited:

imm0rtelle

Basenotes Junkie
Apr 2, 2021
I believe in gender in fragrances, just like I believe in gender in clothing. I agree that gender is a social construct and can be fluid, but it is something that still exists. I feel like people who champion the supposed dogma of "there is no gender in fragrance" are coming from a place on insecurity. As a guy I have no issues with admitting that I wear fragrances with feminine facets in it. I'm comfortable with myself to admit that some of my unisex fragrances are unisex feminine-leaning.

I think that Hedi perfectly captures it here:
1656315623392.png

The whole idea of non-gendered and genderless is kind of grotesque. Reminds me of that Marilyn Manson image.
1656315656066.png
 

PStoller

I’m not old, I’m vintage.
Basenotes Plus
Aug 1, 2019
I feel like people who champion the supposed dogma of "there is no gender in fragrance" are coming from a place on insecurity.

Why would that be a sign of insecurity?

Gender in fragrance, as in many other areas, is dependent on how the construct is perceived in a given time, place, class, and so on. Gender is performative, and fragrance is often (though not always) an aspect of that performance. So, there is perceived gender in fragrance, but there is no inherent gender.

This is not something I say because I’m insecure about wearing a feminine fragrance. I wear them fairly frequently, and I make no secret of it. My gender identity is heteronormative for my demographic, so I’m not doing it to express my feminine side. I’m doing it because a scent is a scent, and the fact that it is or was marketed to women has no bearing on whether it will smell good (and/or masculine) on me.

People have gender, fluid or otherwise, and they may employ fragrant fluids to express that gender. But the fluids themselves? Nah. Gender is just another label you can peel off the bottle.
 

grayspoole

Basenotes Plus
Basenotes Plus
Feb 4, 2014
The ideas in the article are so underdeveloped and disconnected that there’s not much to say. I agree with PStoller on gender and perfume wearing.

But I must react to two passages..

we now have dating apps, a more efficient and consistent way to find a partner than having someone catch your scent and fall in love with you

Catching someone’s scent and falling In love is a wonderful, human, and, I hope, universal experience, with or without perfume. I am thankful that I did not have to rely on “efficient” dating apps to meet the love(s) of my life.

And I am amazed by the description of Baccarat Rouge 540 as an “artisanal” perfume, part of the trend towards “small handcrafted” scents. Last time I checked, Maison Francis Kurkdjian was owned by LVMH.

I do appreciate your posting it, cheapimitation. I would have missed the pleasure of being snarky over the NYT’s perfume journalism otherwise.
 

imm0rtelle

Basenotes Junkie
Apr 2, 2021
So, there is perceived gender in fragrance, but there is no inherent gender.

But the fluids themselves? Nah. Gender is just another label you can peel off the bottle.
I think that since gender is a construct, it is always perceived rather than inherent, so I don't like separating the two when talking about gender for practical purposes. I suspect not many who champion that dogma of "there is no gender in fragrance" is breaking it down in the way that you are. What they're actually trying to say is that "people won't think you're ever smelling masculine or feminine, gender perception towards fragrances do not exist". I disagree wholeheartedly with that.

Breaking it down like the way you are doing is no different than understanding how things have no inherent smell to them, and any smell detected is due to our receptors and brain. Somebody with different receptors and a different brain wiring will smell the same thing differently. So smell is really a product of individual perception, rather than an inherent quality of the aromachemicals themselves. While this is true, I think it intentionally obfuscates the fact that humans like to have agreed upon ideas so that we can all communicate and be on the same page, and part of that requires us to have an agreed upon understanding and interpretation of what we all perceive, a similar "language", in order to share ideas.

I think we both agree that gender is a very real thing, despite not being an inherent quality of the aromachemicals themselves. People who champion against how any mention of gender is inappropriate, when discussing fragrances, is very transparently insecure to me. They cannot tolerate that there are smells that most people agree smell masculine or feminine. This is what I strongly disagree with.

I think understanding fragrances should be interpretive, rather than literal. The perfumer is trying to create ideas using aromachemicals that have absolutely nothing to do with those ideas, after all. Perfumers are trying to create something more than the sum of its parts. Analyzing the fragrance as just its constituents misses the point. I think part of the interpretation requires for us to tap into our cultural understanding and context, or else we just end up being similar to aliens analyzing fragrances without any specific anchors in our mind as to what meanings and associations these aromachemicals have, and why the perfumer chose to tap into those agreed upon associations when constructing the fragrance.
 
Last edited:

cheapimitation

Basenotes Dependent
May 15, 2015
And I am amazed by the description of Baccarat Rouge 540 as an “artisanal” perfume, part of the trend towards “small handcrafted” scents. Last time I checked, Maison Francis Kurkdjian was owned by LVMH.
That made me do a double take too, but re-reading it I think they were saying Ms. Fanella, who is now into artisanal perfume, first got deeper into perfume through Baccarat Rouge. For sure it is awkwardly worded and jarring to see Baccarat Rouge mentioned under the Artisanal Perfume heading.

I do appreciate your posting it, cheapimitation. I would have missed the pleasure of being snarky over the NYT’s perfume journalism otherwise.
Haha, no worries I didn't write it! I do think they tried to cover too many topics without going deep into anything while also mishandling some pretty loaded terms. It reads a bit like a high school report on "perfume today". But still, I find it interesting larger publications are taking note of perfume more and more and some topics that have been the subject of hot debate here are brought up in the article.
 

cheapimitation

Basenotes Dependent
May 15, 2015
It's interesting people are focusing on the gender part, I guess I just glazed over reading that section because it struck me as something so cliché (oooh genderless perfume welcome to 1990!) and tired a topic it didn't even register.

I do think the author mischaracterizes the marketing of niche perfume brands like Byredo, Le Labo et al as "gender neutral". As far as I know, none of them promote that their perfumes are genderless or unisex. Like most niche and higher end perfumes, they don't divide their range into "these are for men and these are for women" which is something I think we all appreciate. But it's a bit of an incorrect leap to go from: not labeling which perfume is for which gender = they are gender neutral.

I think the overall theme is correct, that rather than focusing on sex and gender, fragrance marketing more and more is about how it makes it you feel, self expression, or literally about scent materials themselves -- the trend to give two ingredient names (Rose et Cuir, Vetiver Tonka etc) and marketing copy like Le Labo which shows a table full of ingredients.

I've highlighted a few of the more interesting excerpts that make this point:

Today, brands talk about fragrance in terms of places and how it will make the wearer feel. Smaller, niche perfume brands like Byredo or Le Labo are advertised as “gender neutral.” These brands don’t play to outdated gender constructs and singular messaging about sex and sexual orientation. It’s not a competition for which perfume is the sexiest; it’s about which one can elicit the strongest emotional connection.

According to Rachel Herz, a neuroscientist and the author of “The Scent of Desire: Discovering Our Enigmatic Sense of Smell,” perfume went from marketing “direct themes” like power or sex to encouraging a “personal journey.”

The top response from a 2015 survey asking Scentbird customers why they wore fragrance was “how it made me feel.” Attracting the opposite sex was No. 6 or 7, Ms. ten Brink said.

Others use fragrance as a vehicle for self-expression. Carys Bassett, an I.T. consultant and cybersecurity specialist from Bath, England, wears perfume to stand out, like a statement coat or shoes.
“I like to have my presence lingering after I’ve left the room,” Ms. Bassett, 37, said. “I’m not that fussed by sex. I like to make a statement.”

“Artisanal scents have always been more about the scent and the notes and the ingredients, and less about the image,” said Larissa Jensen, a beauty industry analyst at the NPD Group. Fragrance bottles with lemons, oranges or lavender are the “visual descriptors” drawing people in, she said. “You’re not looking at an ad that has just a man’s naked butt.”
 

PStoller

I’m not old, I’m vintage.
Basenotes Plus
Aug 1, 2019
I suspect not many who champion that dogma of "there is no gender in fragrance" is breaking it down in the way that you are. What they're actually trying to say is that "people won't think you're ever smelling masculine or feminine, gender perception towards fragrances do not exist". I disagree wholeheartedly with that.

I would disagree with that, too. But here on BN, if not beyond, I’ve never seen anyone promote the notion of fragrance as “genderless” in that sense. I do think some who object to the notion do so with that (mis)understanding. More often, the objections I’ve seen hinge on the notion of universal gender absolutes—a debate I don’t need to have again.

Breaking it down like the way you are doing is in no different than understanding how things have no inherent smell to them, and any smell detected is due to our receptors and brain.

To an extent, yes. But, both chemicals and scent receptors have properties that are not constructs. That’s why, for example, the sulfurous mercaptan additives to natural gas work as a warning signal to virtually everyone with a functional sense of smell.

While this is true, I think it intentionally obfuscates the fact that humans like to have agreed upon ideas so that we can all communicate and be on the same page, and part of that requires us to have an agreed upon understanding and interpretation of what we all perceive, a similar "language", in order to share ideas.

Sure, but many of those agreements are purely situational. The generational divide on the concept of gender illustrates that, even if handled rather ham-handedly in the NYT.

People who champion against how any mention of gender is inappropriate, when discussing fragrances, is very transparently insecure to me. They cannot tolerate that there are smells that most people agree smell masculine or feminine. This is what I strongly disagree with.

Here, we part ways to some degree. The idea that “most people” agree on the gender of certain smells is an assertion wanting for proof. Most people within a strictly defined cultural space might agree on the gender of some scents, but they are not globally or historically “most people.” Of course, if you’re only hanging with people in that one space and you’re concerned with what your fragrance says to them about your gender, then those norms are useful for you.

I don’t think it’s inappropriate to mention gender in the discussion of perfume. I just think it’s wise to remember that it’s as subjective as anything else about perfume.

I have my own subjective (and no doubt programmed) sense of olfactive gender, and I prefer not to wear scents that make me feel like I’m wearing drag. What’s notable to me about that is 1) many “feminine” scents don’t generate that feeling, and 2) some “masculine” scents do. Beyond that feeling (and intellectual discussions such as this), gender in fragrance isn’t terribly important to me, so I tend not to stress it in my reviews.

I think understanding fragrances should be interpretive, rather than literal…

Well, yeah. Literal understanding is primarily for perfumers and a few wonky enthusiasts. You don’t need to know the chemistry of paint to enjoy or discuss Kandinsky.
 

Ken_Russell

Basenotes Institution
Jan 21, 2006
Thank you for posting. Sums up a few current main trends quite well, however these very trends can be that inclusive and adaptive to allow apparently contradictory, opposite styles, themes, notes to coexist without one excluding the other.
 

imm0rtelle

Basenotes Junkie
Apr 2, 2021
Most people within a strictly defined cultural space might agree on the gender of some scents, but they are not globally or historically “most people.” Of course, if you’re only hanging with people in that one space and you’re concerned with what your fragrance says to them about your gender, then those norms are useful for you.

I don’t think it’s inappropriate to mention gender in the discussion of perfume. I just think it’s wise to remember that it’s as subjective as anything else about perfume.
I think this is all fair, and I agree. I do think the subjective aspect brings good discussions that personally helps me understand why I like something or dislike something, so I welcome it.

But here on BN, if not beyond, I’ve never seen anyone promote the notion of fragrance as “genderless” in that sense.
When I reflect on the demographic of Basenotes, I think you're right about that. Outside of Basenotes, the narrative that fragrance is "genderless" is shoved down almost everyone's throat. Thinking otherwise is almost considered a "thought crime" in the fragrance community. I think this is less of a thing in real life, and is more of an online phenomenon in the fragrance community echo chamber. I also think this is a uniquely western perspective, and prevalent especially with younger fragrance enthusiasts. I was expecting a lot more pushback by challenging this "dogma", but it seems like those zealots aren't on Basenotes, or maybe they just haven't read this thread yet.
 

lair77

Super Member
Jun 7, 2022
Technology is a factor too.

If you grew up in the 80s or 90s, and you didnt live near a big city with niche brands, your exposure to fragrances would be through magazine ads or tv or a billboard.

But in the 2010’s, theres online sample orders and yourube community, easier to discover artisan fragrances
 

lair77

Super Member
Jun 7, 2022
Im happy that sexuality isnt as much of a factor in fragrances anymore. Fragrances arent inherently sexual; but its the job of marketing teams to make people associate their product with feelings. (I.e. cocacola wanting you to associate their bwverage with the holidays).

This is a win-win. More inclusion to lgbt and nonbinary. And lets get rid of that awful stereotype that people just use fragrances to try to get laid.
 

Lomaniac

Basenotes Dependent
Aug 4, 2014
What a weirdly incorrect article. Much of perfume is still gendered, and much of the retail spending is still based on appearing physically attractive and alluring. And that's just considering the west. It also manages to ignore entirely much of the rest of the world as well, where many areas are nowhere near this cultural dynamic.

Hell, the text of the article plainly states it is still like this while the title claims it's no longer the case.

Plus, it conflates sex with sexy. Weirdly written to try to say several things while not really saying anything, while only seeming to shame people who want to feel attractive to others.
 

PStoller

I’m not old, I’m vintage.
Basenotes Plus
Aug 1, 2019
Outside of Basenotes, the narrative that fragrance is "genderless" is shoved down almost everyone's throat. Thinking otherwise is almost considered a "thought crime" in the fragrance community. I think this is less of a thing in real life, and is more of an online phenomenon in the fragrance community echo chamber. I also think this is a uniquely western perspective, and prevalent especially with younger fragrance enthusiasts. I was expecting a lot more pushback by challenging this "dogma", but it seems like those zealots aren't on Basenotes, or maybe they just haven't read this thread yet.

I’m not active in the “fragcom” outside BN, so I’ll take your word. My sense of it, based on second-hand observation there vs. first-hand here is that there, much of the discussion is driven by younger people pushing their newer “progressive” gender ideology, whereas BN harbors a balance between those types and older/more conservative people pushing a “traditional” ideology. In either case, fragrance is being filtered through (if not employed as) politics.

But then, isn’t everything? Gender fluidity strikes me as much healthier than the rigid gender conceptions of my generation, especially given all the people I’ve known who didn’t fit comfortably within them. That doesn’t mean it’s going to make issues of identity easier or more comfortable for everyone who embraces it.

We use social constructs to solve problems. Now, those constructs can also cause or exacerbate other problems. (Understatement of the year.) Dispense with the constructs, though, and the original issues that gave rise to them may still be waiting for you. My hope is that all this leads to more useful, more flexible constructs, and fewer dogma wars.
 

PStoller

I’m not old, I’m vintage.
Basenotes Plus
Aug 1, 2019
I must react to two passages..

we now have dating apps, a more efficient and consistent way to find a partner than having someone catch your scent and fall in love with you

Catching someone’s scent and falling In love is a wonderful, human, and, I hope, universal experience, with or without perfume. I am thankful that I did not have to rely on “efficient” dating apps to meet the love(s) of my life.

Likewise. Even without COVID, I don’t envy today’s digitally empowered daters.

FYI, my wife often says she remembered my scent between when we met 44 years ago and when we reunited some 15–20 years after that. Perfume had nothing to do with it: at the time, I didn’t wear any.

And I am amazed by the description of Baccarat Rouge 540 as an “artisanal” perfume, part of the trend towards “small handcrafted” scents. Last time I checked, Maison Francis Kurkdjian was owned by LVMH.

Yes, last time you checked. But Baccarat Rouge was issued in 2014, and LVMH bought MFK in 2017. I’m still not sure that makes BR540 “artisanal,” but it doesn’t disqualify it.
 

grayspoole

Basenotes Plus
Basenotes Plus
Feb 4, 2014
Yes, last time you checked. But Baccarat Rouge was issued in 2014, and LVMH bought MFK in 2017. I’m still not sure that makes BR540 “artisanal,” but it doesn’t disqualify it.

Guilty as charged for citing the LVMH bogeyman as a shortcut for explaining why I think BR540 is not artisanal.

I think this NYT piece sums it up pretty well. BR540 is a very intelligent, very synthetic, very simplistic, and very commercial composition—which is not my definition of artisanal.

https://www.thecut.com/2021/12/how-baccarat-rouge-540-became-the-scent-of-2021.html

Going back to the original article, the woman who was quoted as saying “Of course I have Baccarat Rouge” is “Dina Fanella, a 50-year-old special education teacher in Las Vegas, [who] seeks out singular fragrances. She doesn’t like mass-produced perfume for the same reason she doesn’t like big hotels: It feels generic.“ And the mind reels...
 

PStoller

I’m not old, I’m vintage.
Basenotes Plus
Aug 1, 2019
BR540 is a very intelligent, very synthetic, very simplistic, and very commercial composition—which is not my definition of artisanal.

Nor mine. It is a successful “niche” fragrance, but niche isn’t artisanal anymore than Kurkdjian is Russian Adam. I understand Dina Fanella’s confusion on that score, because perfume marketing is designed to create it, but any journalist covering this beat should know better.
 

CookBot

Flâneuse
Basenotes Plus
Jan 6, 2012
Going back to the original article, the woman who was quoted as saying “Of course I have Baccarat Rouge” is “Dina Fanella, a 50-year-old special education teacher in Las Vegas, [who] seeks out singular fragrances. She doesn’t like mass-produced perfume for the same reason she doesn’t like big hotels: It feels generic.“ And the mind reels...

😁

I'm beginning to think that NYT writer may have had her tongue edging slyly toward her cheek. She seems to be subtly pointing out the irony of her source's comments.
 

Salumbre

Basenotes Junkie
Jan 26, 2022
Like most journalism, this piece is a mass of oversimplifications.

Fragrance is not always sexual; it is, however, always sensual. Even the clean astringency of pine or the majesty of frankincense are technically sensual, since they go through our senses first.

As for the emotional side of fragrance, I would say it has to do with memory. Proust's madeleine and all that jazz.
 

grayspoole

Basenotes Plus
Basenotes Plus
Feb 4, 2014
😁

I'm beginning to think that NYT writer may have had her tongue edging slyly toward her cheek. She seems to be subtly pointing out the irony of her source's comments.

It’s certainly possible that there is some kind of head fake going on here, but most of the perfume writing in the NYT Style section Is marketing copy.
 

PStoller

I’m not old, I’m vintage.
Basenotes Plus
Aug 1, 2019
It’s certainly possible that there is some kind of head fake going on here, but most of the perfume writing in the NYT Style section Is marketing copy.

Tongue-in-cheek head-fakery usually has more of a wink than I pick up here. This article looks to me like a writer trying to make a handful of facts fit a thesis rather than deriving a valid thesis from available facts. Journalism shouldn’t look like that, much less be that.

I’m not familiar enough with Strugatz’ work to know if this is characteristic of it. The headlines have an editorial slant toward connecting beauty trends with themes of social relevance. That’s cool, as long as the writing backs it up.
 

JBHoren

I'm a social vegan. I avoid meet.
Basenotes Plus
Apr 25, 2007
Whatever became of Chandler Burr?
He left the NYT over a decade ago. He’s got a museum gig and runs a nonprofit. I doubt he misses his old gig.
I knew he left, but didn't know where. I miss his writing; it was his books -- The Emperor of Scent and The Perfect Scent -- along with his NYTimes articles, that got me started on this. His leaving, along with Frank Bruni moving from food critic to Op-Ed editor, marked the end of the NYTimes, for me (yes, I'm "that shallow").
 

Pippin06

always learning--often laughing
Basenotes Plus
Feb 8, 2017
I knew he left, but didn't know where. I miss his writing; it was his books -- The Emperor of Scent and The Perfect Scent -- along with his NYTimes articles, that got me started on this. His leaving, along with Frank Bruni moving from food critic to Op-Ed editor, marked the end of the NYTimes, for me (yes, I'm "that shallow").
The end of the New York Times for me was when they forgot they were a newspaper.
 

Latest News

Whatever your taste in perfume, we've got you covered...

catalogue your collection, keep track of your perfume wish-list, log your daily fragrance wears, review your latest finds, seek out long-lost scented loves, keep track of the latest perfume news, find your new favourite fragrance, and discuss perfume with like-minded people from all over the world...

Top
pp