PROLIFERATION OF PERFUME BLOGS AND WANABE perfume EXPERT [...] Or better said Perfume aficionados and connoisseur? What is this new trend allowing People with no knowledge, no training, and no clue of our industry, opening Blog’s calling themselves “Perfume expert’s”, “Perfume Critic’s” or better yet “Perfumer’s”.
— Bernard Pommier doesn't like wannabe perfume bloggers. Read more at perfume2000. (found via salonaesthetica)
Smelling like Canada is sexy. A lovely walk in a forest by a stream? Sounds sexy to me. Who wouldn't want to smell that good?
— Designer Dan Caten of Dsquared on the brand's new fragrance, Dsquared He Wood. Read more at theglobeandmail.
Thanks fo the linked citation…I think.
::cocks head to side::
One hopes your post doesn't cause surly *frawnsh* perfumers to get their boxers in a twist over the publicizing of yet another wannabe perfume expert's blog. Zut alors!
Let's see if I can offend Canada next.
Or what about the trend of idiotic commentary from someone who appears to have an extremely poor grasp of English spelling, grammar and punctuation? I guess that's too big to be called a “trend” these days.
Ooooh, I think I took one too many surly pills last night. Sorry. Off to apply Theorema for a change in attitude.
Surly frawnsh perfumers ought to have better things to do, I should think, than read my blog anyway
I'm hoping somebody else translated Mr. Pommier's words without his knowledge or consent.
Theorema is so soothing
It seems to be ok if one is frawnsch. And a perfumer.
Untwisting his boxers must take up hours, if not days, of his precious time.
Incidentally, my post that initially unleashed Bernard Pommier's surly comments upon the perfume blogosphere (God, I'm sorry, I hate that term) produced a couple of private messages tsk tsk-ing me for my “meanness” mistakenly posing as wit. I guess this means you are just a big meany too. Sorry!
Yes I'm luxuriatin in this comment thread. Bless your heart.
::sips coffee with great satisfaction if not an actual sense of sweet revenge::
One hopes.
Yeah, Robin.
Stop comparing yourself to Edmond Roudnitska. It's getting really tiresome.
*hah!*
*snort*
Ok I'm an idiot.
I just googled Theorema,thinking it was some natural supplement or magic elixir, thinking I could use a hit. The meanness, you know.
Whoops: Maybe Bernard is right after all.
Hmmm. I didn't post it to be mean (or witty) to anybody, least of all Mr. Pommier.
And I do think he has some good points about not taking yourself too seriously — this is a fault I see in many “amateurs” (and I include myself in that category) who blog, and not only in the perfume field.
I wasn't even sure what he meant about the bloggers calling themselves “perfumers” bit, unless he is complaining about some of the indie perfumers who blog calling themselves “perfumers”. I know from past comments that at least some “professional perfumers” are bothered when the term perfumer is applied to “non-professionals”.
R, your detached and, most importantly, ever (self-)critical stance, is a constant reminder of how much respect I have for your work on this blog.
You are very kind, as always! But I do wonder. I don't take myself seriously at all — I mean, I know that I know next to nothing about perfume. In fact, there is lots about perfume that I don't even really want to know.
But I don't know how I come across. It's hard to see out of your own box.
Ooooh, can you hear the ping of a nerve being touched?
The effrontery of ordinary people discussing their thoughts on perfume instead of just drinking up the marketing copy and rushing out to buy 'the dream'! The cheek of them wanting to know about sillage, lasting power, originality and actual notes as opposed to claims of 'iced lychee'!
I mean, if this goes on, the rabble will be buying scent based on rational decisions, rather than trotting obediently towards the perfume counter with their head full of flowery prose.
Apologies for the spelling and grammar, Bernard. I just couldn't bring myself to put in all those extraneous apostrophes.
Sheesh, was he trained at the perfume SA school?
Precisely because you write about what you do know, it's no surprise then that your writing comes across as natural, clear and unpretentious and that it's been a point of reference for many bloggers and commenters. I'd also like to add that I follow a (comparatively) small number of perfume blogs (you know which ones) that discuss perfume from more or less similar angles, but what I love most about these bloggers isn't their vast knowledge of scent (which I certainly do appreciate), but their warmth, openness to the likeminded. It is this human touch that I have been coming for, that I come for every morning. Because you guys make me happy.
LOL — oh yes, I think a nerve was most certainly touched.
You know, it is all the same argument being made by Andrew Keen in The Cult of the Amateur. We may find it silly and elitist (and I do find it silly and elitist) but it is an idea that has some traction at the moment. But it is a losing argument — people just aren't interested in getting all their information from “experts”.
Now masquerading as an expert, that is another matter, and that is part of what I found interesting about his 'rant'.
The comments here are almost as entertaining as poor Bernard's post. Almost.
We all know a few self-taught indie perfumers who are at least as talented as the formally trained. They also have decent blogging skills. And better grammar. Not to mention integrity when it comes to what they put in their juice and marketing methods.
When it comes to blogging, I hope I manage to keep the same level of perspective whether I'm reviewing a classic Guerlain or a green nail polish. I'm kind of amused with potentially being one of those who put the bee in the poor guy's bonnet.
You said it, Dusan. Spot-on.
There you go blaming the translator again! LOL!
PS. I think it's much more likely he wrote that blah blah himself with the English he had to learn at school. I'm not defending what he said but anyone here want to try and write 265 words of comprehensible French? Anyone?
Criticize what he says, by all means, but don't blame him for not being fluent in English. It's neither here nor there.
Btw, since when does 'an extremely poor grasp of English spelling, grammar and punctuation' stop any native English speaker from commenting all over the Net.
Okay, so no one should pass themselves off as experts at anything if they're just learning like most people. That having been said, people have to start somewhere and as far as perfume goes, there's plenty of room for a healthy exchange of ideas just with basic concepts of notes, sillage, longevity, nostalgia relating fragrance to time, place and circumstance, moods created or invoked with scent, etc. Good communicative skills can make even a rudimentary perspective interesting with a little exploration. I would rather talk to someone who knows next to nothing about scent but has a sincere joy of learning about them and seems enthused than someone who seems jaded and concerned with some sort of status they think their knowledge of fragrance gives them. Nothing replaces experience, but this putting on airs furthers nothing.
The emporer wears no clothes.
Meh, who's Bernard Pommier anyway? I couldn't even pull up his name on Google. I don't think anyone claimed to be an expert, and what's so terrible about voicing our thoughts? If it smells like rubber, it smells like rubber. If I think it smells skanky then I'm entitled to say so.
I can say for myself and everyone here on this blog have the intelligence to differentiate between the paintings in the Sistine Chapel and a chimpanzee throwing its feces at a canvas and from the two distinguish the true work of art.
The problem appears to be that Mr. Pommier is an “importer, marketer and manufacturer”, and people who publicly express negative opinions (possibly unfounded or uneducated ones, I concede) will cut into his profit margin.
He certainly isn't wrong that people with no training have no right to call themselves experts. To be a critic or an expert does require training, and lots of it.
However, you'd think that, being French, he might know that the word “amateur” is intimately related to the word “amour”, “love”, because amateurs are people who do a thing not because it will bring them any money, but because they love it. “Amateur” has become an insult in English, and that's a shame, because it suggests a passion that can easily be lost when you do something for a living. I'm happy to be an amateur perfume fanatic and scribbler.
Aw, poor M. Pommier. It's not easy to be an “importer, marketer and manufacturer” in the age of prosumer.
It's Internet, Mr. Pommier. Anyone is allowed to blog about anything, you know. And there's nothing to do about it:)
There are lots of amateurs in my field too: amateur translators. Saying I feel murderous towards them would be an understatement. Amateurs have a bad press because they debase the profession they infiltrate. People on the outside start thinking, 'Oh, well, if so many people can do it, it can't be that difficult, can it?' The problem is amateurs 'can't' do it. (I always thought I should have been Hungarian, for instance: I would be in greater demand as a translator and I wouldn't be constantly faced with people who think they can speak/write/translate my language.)
That said, I don't think perfume bloggers do any harm to the profession, but then I am not perfumer so I don't know how it is viewed by professional perfumers. I'm just someone who enjioys reading those blogs.
Pyramus, I have to respectfully disagree w/ “to be a critic requires training”. There are any number of widely respected critics, in any number of fields, with no training whatsoever. Mind you, I don't consider myself a “critic” and I am certainly an “amateur”, so I'm not sticking up for myself, just saying.
I mean, Luca Turin, who is a “qualified perfume critic” if anyone is, is a biophysicist. I don't think any of us respect his thinking about perfume because of his training as a biophysicist.
Can't agree w/ “because they debase the profession they infiltrate”. Can see how it is true for translation, but for other fields, not exactly.
I for one seriously disagree w/ the notion that the perfume writing in the mainstream press is any better than what you see in the blogs. In fact, the people writing about perfume in the fashion mags rarely seem particularly knowledgeable about their subject. I've read some serious drivel from the “professionals”.
I can't write even 2 words of comprehensible French
I think in this case, as in the other similar rants I've seen, the issue is not with whether or not you're talented, but with whether or not you can call yourself a “perfumer”. It isn't an issue I care about, but then, I'm also not a “perfumer”.
You guys are very nice
Well said!
I don't know who he is, and I don't know if anyone claimed to be an expert, but I do agree with his point that bloggers should make a point of “stating their credentials” someplace on their site. Many readers wander into perfume blogs from Google and have no idea who/what they are reading. It makes sense to identify yourself.
LOL!
I am always happy to complain about the obvious, so I can't fault him on that score
Someone should remind this man that perfume, like sex, is too much fun to be left to the professionals.
If anything, M. Pommier and the likes of him should listen and take note of what we're saying because unlike some focus group we love perfume with a passion, and highly regard the makings of a GOOD perfume, and not just toiletry to be put out there just to sell and for them to reap a quick cash crop. It's obvious when they lure a celebrity to be the face behind some scent because most of the time the scent can't stand on its own for lack of quality or artistry, but for instances of classics like No.5, you know they want a spike in sales and keep the consumer from “forgetting” its existence from the hordes of perfume out there.
R., don't sell yourself short, the only thing you have to know about scent is if you like it or not, that it's nice but not for you. How hard is that? Pommier obviously was speaking from the daïs he built for himself and on the same token has no problems with selling ice to Eskimos.
LOL — good one!
I did say it was probably not true in your field. I was trying to point out that being an amateur is not always as innocuous and, you know, cute as was being made to seem by the commenter. If you start by saying that 'amateur' comes from the verb 'to love' (which is true) then you feel that you have to forgive amateurs for everything because how could you *possibly* be against people who do things out of love? Being an amateur is not an excuse for doing things badly and a lot of them do.
I agree with you about people writing in the fashion magazines, etc. I've long stopped respecting their opinions, that's why I mostly only read your blog.
I rest my case.
“Training” perhaps wasn't the right word. My point was merely this: there's a universe of difference between movie critics such as Pauline Kael (who ran a movie theatre, had direct involvement in the movie industry, and had seen and studied thousands of movies) and the scribbler who writes about movies in a small-town paper. It takes a huge amount of work to be a critic: there aren't schools that train you to do so, but in some sense you have to train yourself. You can't just say, “Oh, I read a lot of books, so I'll be a book critic!” You can be a book critic under those circumstances, of course: you just won't be a very good one.
As for the word “amateur”, I wasn't trying to make it sound innocuous and cute. I was thinking more about the ideal of the Victorian educated classes, who felt that one should bring art into one's life, so pretty much everyone played the piano, painted, wrote verse, and so forth, and not just in private: they held song recitals and readings for their families and friends. (There were also lots of amateur scientists, archaeologists, and suchlike, though they didn't usually practice their craft before an audience.) Not everybody was especially good, of course: that's the curse of the amateur. But the point was that you tried, and expanded your horizons, and participated in the pastimes of a cultured society. No doubt some good work actually did emerge from these poetasters and dabblers.
At any rate, anyone can call themselves a critic, a writer, a perfumer, a painter, a translator or whatnot, and nobody can stop them: isn't that really a good thing, that more people have more opportunities to try more things than ever before in human history? Fulminating about amateurs isn't going to do any good–you just have to learn to filter the good from the bad.
Completely agree that being an amateur is not an excuse for doing things badly.
And it is sort of a non sequitur, but will also add that if any mainstream publication *seriously* covered perfume, I don't think the perfume blogs would exist, or at least not in such huge numbers. Or at least, I wouldn't have started one.
I'll agree w/ all of that.
I think one of the complaints about “Web 2.0” is that “filtering the good from the bad” is done by mass vote via Google, and that many feel that quality content isn't always rewarded under that system. I have to admit I haven't read Keen's Cult of the Amateur, but from what I've read elsewhere, that is one of his key points.
Oh, no worries, I don't think I sell myself short at all.
'…anyone can call themselves a critic, a writer, a perfumer, a painter, a translator or whatnot, and nobody can stop them: isn't that really a good thing, that more people have more opportunities to try more things than ever before in human history? Fulminating about amateurs isn't going to do any good–you just have to learn to filter the good from the bad.'
That's where the problem lies: a lot of people cannot tell the good from the bad. Again in my field, employers will always try to get things done as cheaply as possible so they employ rotten translators, people whose only qualifications is that they are native speakers. It's extremely bad for our – the professionals – reputation. I don't mind people trying whatever they want in the privacy of their own home, but when they come out into the public arena it's a different matter altogether, and what is more public than the Internet?
Anyway, I will carry on 'fulminating about amateurs' – on my own platform. I don't want to hijack Robin's blog for it.
Indeed. Where were the publications writing at length about perfume? Nowhere. You'd be lucky if you found an article around Christmas, just telling you (or rather men) what was new and desirable. And that was it for another year.
S, for some reason that second sentence really cracked me up. I laughed out loud and startled me toddler.
Happy to observe that, for me, the whole argument is moot. Analogy: film appreciation. I love movies, love watching them, love the art form, am interested in actors, writers and directors, am addicted to reading film reviews; over the years, I have formed a trust in the opinions of critics whose insights seem most consistently accurate, fair-minded, helpful and just plain good reading. I don't really give a damn what Roger Ebert's “professional” qualifications are or what kind of training he has — he's got heart, soul, brains and a natural ability to communicate, and his take on films generally mirrors my own. Nice: if he likes a movie, chances are that I will too; if he pans one, I take his word for that. Practical stuff, in this world of so-many-things-to-choose-from. Robin, you and your writers provide the same service to us fragrance lovers, period. It's that simple, really, and I categorically think that nobody out there does it better. I know I'm not alone. The value of your blog is multiplied by the contributions of other brilliant, knowledgable amateurs such as the ones who have commented so articulately in this very thread!! There, I feel MUCH better!!
I can only disagree with Mr Pommier because the problem (if there would be one) is not in the blog area but in the fragrance industry. As you might know, there is no diploma recognised by the state with a title “perfumer” as it is for “architect, engineer, etc. I graduated ISIPCA-Versailles but on my paper, and on all documents of people who did their studies there, it is not written perfumer. As long as the industry will not be able to obtain, at least in France such kind of document all discutions about beeing or not a perfumer are senseles and useles. In my humble opinion at least one should be called perfumer if he/she produces/creates perfumes. To compare one with Roudnitska and to speak about art/great art is rather puerile. A perfumer who creates scents for body care / detergents are not on an inferiour grade so… even if there are indie perfumers I do not agree to disqualify them based on the “art” level. It's like saying Warhol is less good than Rubens.
On the other hand it's also more an industry problem the fact that there is no “real critique”. If you read all the profesional magazines you will never find the minimum critique of a fragrances. It's either a presentation (from the marketing/press release), either a market study putting together trends. So, when critics started to appear it was quite a surprise…
Maybe nobody wanted that there would be “experts” or “critics” in the fragrance universe. As there is no certification in the field (not even schools with classes like theatre/film/art critic) anyone saying he's a critic/expert is easy to be “atacked” but also everybody can be perfumer/critic/ and to a lesser extent expert. That's the paradox of an industry who promoted secrecy many years.
And … when Mr.Pommier speaks about consumers beeing confused by trends… he forgets that those texts/rummors/buzz came from the marketing dept. of the same industry.
So, in a way it's also a reaction to all the fragrances that invaded the market and all the confusion around. Maybe a lot of them are not experts or are far away but at least…their fault is not as big as what a lot of brands did in the past years with all the exagerated claims you can see/hear: from Estee Lauder in the 80s (in her autobiography) claiming she was the perfumer who made herself YouthDew & Co… to all the exotic materials/woods/headspace/extrasupernatural extracts that you can still see in some descriptions.
I think that one should reflect that maybe in front of “black orchid extract” and natural jasmine from Grasse versus self proclaimed experts … the problem is somewhere in the middle.
Ok, besides your point, kind of, but check out my favorite (amateur) film blog:
http://selfstyledsiren.blogspot.com/
And the author is a perfumista as well!
Very nice point about the “paradox of an industry who promoted secrecy many years”, and about how much consumer confusion is due to the nonsense spouted from within the industry.
Wow, thanks, R.!! I will check it out. And, for “real” (!) professional film critics' reviews from across the US — one from Canada, too! — I get a lot of good stuff from Metacritic.com. Ebert is there among the bunch, as well as the reliable folks from the San Francisco Chronicle and Salon. Very comprehensive.
Ooooh, perfume and movies! My two passions combined! Must check out this blog!
Sounds like Mr. Pommier needs to take himself less seriously! None of the perfume bloggers I have run across try to present themselves as anything other than what they are: passionate fans of scent.
She doesn't write about scent very often, but it is a great blog. She is up for a Weblog 2007 award in the culture category!
*perk*
did someone mention movies?
*perk*
Ah, one of my other obsessions — and a semi-professions, at that, for this Angeleno.
I would love to really think, watch and compile a list of perfume references in films. I can't for the life of me think of any perfume relevance for my favorite, Lawrence of Arabia. ::thinking::
Arabie by SL?
lol ! sadly, there are no Serge Lutens references in the film. I might just get a sample and douse myself anyway with that next time I watch. As long as It doesn't clash with the buttered popcorn. Maybe an aoud scent would work, too. Or
Come to think of it, I would also need a layer of something veddy British, to represent the British military aspect and his transformation and search for identity. Any ideas?
Something by Floris or Penhaligon's would fit the bill, I think. Lawrence of Arabia is one of my favourite films: I've seen it soooo many times. I especially love Omar's first appearance. I sometimes wish it took him even longer to shimmer into view.