I do not create luxury. I am an extremist. I like to see an idea or discussion through to the end. I am an outspoken critic and I do not allow mediocrity. Luxury doesn't explain itself and cannot be consciously intended; it should be immediately apparent.
— Serge Lutens, answering the question "There's a great quote on your website about the vulgarity of trying to create luxury. Is this a contradiction of your positioning?", in Cosmetics International, 1/30/09 (print edition).
I'm sorry, but can Serge get any more pretentious? I think there are some wonderful things in his line, but every quote I read from him is ridiculous.
Usually he seems to delight in being as obtuse as possible — in this particular interview he seems to at least have given simple, straightforward answers.
I think what he says there is perfectly reasonable: I expect he has in mind brands like Versace or Gucci, for instance, which, I'm afraid, are considered vulgar – and a bit of a joke – outside certain circles (i.e. the nouveaux riches – whatever the source of their 'richesse', and people who've only recently had access to such goods). I'm talking fashion and accessories, but I suppose it also applies to perfume.
I have to agree with occhineri… Why does he always need to speak like the Oracle at freakin' Delphi?! I imagine him talking like this to the supermarket checkout person, his dry cleaner, his dog… Maybe I'd feel more forgiving if I loved any of his perfumes, but he's like a bad parody of a French intellectual.
J, I would agree with the idea that much of what is intended as luxury is vulgar…but not sure I would agree with the idea that luxury *can't* be intended.
I can't imagine SL in any of those scenarios, except maybe talking to a dog. But surely someone else does his errands?
I do love his perfumes, but I have not loved most of his interviews, and don't care for the way the fragrances are presented to the press.
I love how much of a unique character Serge Lutens is—what's more, he seems genuinely obsessed with making exceptional creations. He is “perfumer” as it should be; overly nostalgic and romantic, dramatic and taciturn, viewing the world as a place of creative and sensory abstracts. Most of the time, his words crack me up. But his scents miraculously give meaning to such “Yoda-like” reflections; they hit the sentimental nerve like no other and despite knowing this, the sensation surprises me every time :).
“…like the Oracle at freakin' Delphi?!…”
Hahaha…the best description of the Serge Luten-ese, ever. Reading his personal impressions and the company's press releases, is like reading something written in a hash-up of Tolkien Elvish, Ancient Mesopotamian and “Marlon Brando” mumblings.
I always enjoy reading Lutens' pronouncements, although I don't always understand them. I think that is part of their charm. In this instance, I am reminded of Genevieve Dariaux' book 'A guide to elegance':
“Where elegance is concerned, the greater the luxury, the more discreet it is – until finally, after advancing through more and more exclusive and restricted stages, you reach the point of ultimate luxury, which is imperceptible to everyone but you.” (Dariaux, 1964, 2003, p. 105)
thank you SO much for a great belly laugh!!! I'm still shaking with laughter! I can just see him droning on to some poor dog….
xo
But what is the point of being “perfumer as it should be” if the end result is that he cracks people up? I mean, I agree he seems to be obsessed with making exceptional creations, and it's working. But not sure I've found that the scents give meaning to his words. Maybe I'm too dim-witted
Great quote, thanks. Nobody understands luxury that way these days: luxury seems to be about ostentatious spending, nothing more.
LOL — not the image I intended, but ALWAYS happy to provide a laugh!
oh, I'm quite certain that Serge's pooch would respond in equally esoteric and pedantic tones…….now you know why some dogs bite…
It's true; there's a fine line between abstract prose and meaningless babble. Maybe it's just nasal intoxication speaking for me because after sniffing some of his scents, I'd nod and agree to any dizzy description he'd care to give them “Oh, a flight of the essence of air meaning, against the smile of a Bolshevik horse? That all makes PERFECT sense…”
I just realized something: Serge Lutens is sort of like the “Bjork” of the fragrance world. Talented but flaky.
Apparently, his Kung Fu is stronger than mine…..
Now that's a perfect assessment
I think I get his point though. Recently I've been talking to a lot of companies – mostly in Switzerland – who create and sell what can only be termed as “luxury goods”. These creators see themselves as artists and are mad about their art. It is normal that, having put enormous work, talent and fabulous materials, to charge a fortune for something they may not even feel like selling anymore, so much soul has been invested into the beautiful watch, pen or piece of jewelry. They care only for beauty and perfection – and the result screams “luxury” but the beauty is greater than the price if that makes sense. The price seems besides the point.
And most Gucci, Guess and Louis Vuitton fans may have never heard of these brands, it's “connoisseurs only”.
Snobbish perhaps, but true.
Then again, Björk is of an endearing, likable flakiness, whereas SL exudes arrogance more than anything else. I do love the image of him orating to his dog, though!
You guys are making me choke on my tea.
That resonates nicely with the quote above, thanks. But personally I'd rather have freedom than luxury, and much of freedom seems to me to consist of teaching yourself not to need “things”, or at least, to need as few things as possible. Not a perfumista mantra, to be sure…
Serge could totally have said that.
Robin, I wish you'd go back through your archives, pluck some SL gems, and run them all together. Off the top of my head, I recall the blurb for Chypre Noir sounding particularly wacky.
On the whole, though, my perfume life would be much poorer without SL.
Duh. Rouge. Chypre Rouge.
Between your wish and the meaning of luxury there is no apparent contradiction.
Personally I've always admired people who have, for example, ONE exquisite shoulder bag that looks like it has travelled the world over and back again (and in glamorous places), ONE exquisite fragrance so you recognize them with your eyes closed, so that no one smells like them etc. Or that fabulous piece of jewelry you can't imagine them without.
If there could be an association between the word “spartan” and the word “luxury” – is that perhaps “streamlined”? Well that's what I like.
We human beings are a creation of God. Hence we are more complicated and – if well maintained – more refined than anything our minds and hands can produce. Our bodies and our minds come before any luxury and whoever respects things over their own body, character and life experience is a fool.
If my earlier comment reads snobbish, it was not intended to be. I can admire exquisite things without needing to own all of them and do not think my life will improve by owning anything.
Yeah, I just sprayed some Earl Grey on my 'puter keyboard!
But I don't want to ask you people to stop making me laugh…
My parents have instilled in me an appreciation for things well-made, so I was always suspicious of brands that plastered their logo all over things, trying to scream to everyone that they represent “luxury”. It took working in retail for me to really appreciate it. My friend still works in the handbags & accessories department of a snotty dept store and we've both learned how shoddily made products by Burberry, Dooney & Bourke and Gucci are. Some brands, though, fortunately, do seem to strive for quality (Michael Kors and Kooba are a couple that come to mind). I refuse, to this day, to buy anything that has a logo emblazoned on it. I am not paying exorbitant prices to advertise for their company – I'm looking at you Guess, Gucci, Louis Vuitton!
Seriously, look at the comment right above you — brain flash — Bjork should take all those gems and SING them.
Totally, wholeheartedly agree — being a perfumista without SL would be WAY less interesting.
Oh, and if I implied that your comment sounded at all snobbish, I really truly did not mean to! I have been (SLOWLY) skimming through Dana Thomas' “Deluxe: How Luxury Lost It's Luster”, and thinking about how this old world luxury that she is nostalgic for does not appeal to me in the least. I have 3 or 4 things that make me happy: books, perfume, tea, chocolate. I can keep myself in all of those things, and not have to do work I don't enjoy in order to pay for them, by carrying an old beat up cheap handbag, and that's the way I prefer it.
If somebody else wants to have that perfect handbag, I could care less, and if somebody else wants to earn tons of money so they can have 10 handbags & another hundred pairs of shoes, again, I could care less. Everybody has to find the right balance for their own lives.
I don't like logos either. They're hard to avoid these days.
hate logos myself – my thought: I will buy a Gucci et al bag when Gucci corp et al buys and displays one of my paintings!
Works for me!
xo
LOL — perfect!
Really! They should pay me to carry their billboard around on their shoulder!