Perhaps unsurprisingly, Sheldrake's take is less extreme. "It's important to remember that No 19 was created at the beginning of the 1970s, an era notable for the fact that women's emancipation was at its height. The original No 19 was created in the spirit of the first wave of feminism and it therefore has something of an 'I'll walk all over you' aspect to it, I agree."
No 19 Poudré , as perhaps befits the time, "is a more obviously feminine fragrance," Polge argues.
— Perfumers Christopher Sheldrake and Jacques Polge talk about the upcoming Chanel No 19 Poudré.
Update: huge apologies, I inadvertently left out the link to the original article! Here it is: One green bottle: Meet the brains – and noses – behind Chanel No 19 at The Independent.
In other words, the men of Chanel have openly confessed their intentions to enslave the other half of the population in restricted gender roles constructed by men, through perfume. Symbolically undoing feminism note by note!
Morgan, thanks for finding a more civil way to say this than I was going to be able to muster!
I would have thought that on this subject, they might best perhaps just keep quiet…it seems a risky subject, and not really a selling point in any case.
Coco must be turning in her grave. Does the name of a house, even such a big name as “Chanel’, mean anything to the people running these houses?
Does a house created by one personality have a reason to exist without a direct connection to and dependence from the values of the person who created it?
Presumably Chance already made her roll over in her grave.
The “Egoïste” speaks. (Insert eye rolling icon.)
🙂
Good grief.
As a woman speaking to a man: shut up already and get back in your lab. No one is interested in your opinion, just keep making formulas.
As the kids say: PWNED!!
Ah – I don’t know what that means!!! 😉 I don’t want to admit I’m not hip with the kids at all!
I’ve been told that “pwned” is a corruption of “owned,” and that this slang originated in the videogame-dork community (of which my fiancé is a member). It means you packed Sheldrake’s lunch 🙂
thanks 😉
I think she packed his lunch after she took a bite out of everything and kept the candy bar for herself!! Wish I’d said it Ann!!
🙂
Alright, so I guess I’ll play a bit of Devil’s Advocate on this one. I think that the feminism of the early 1970’s expressed the totally appropriate rage and frustration of women perhaps overly aimed towards men. It is the nature of privilege that you don’t have to think about how you have the advantage in whatever particular situation. Most men enjoy male privilege, even in today’s more PC culture, without much awareness at all. That doesn’t relieve them of the responsibility to help change things when it’s brought to their attention, and I DO hold responsibility to anyone who hears of inequity and insists on trying to keep things the same rather than correct it.
To apply it to perfume, no. 19 clearly has a “I am woman” vibe. It is powerful and not at all traditionally feminine. Of course, our general definitions of femininity are based on traditional, submissive women’s roles.
And yet, I think we have entered an era of women reclaiming beauty for their own sake. I do not want to look pretty in order to snag a man but rather to treat myself to the natural instinct of personal pride. As long as I let my own preferences and desires define how and when I feel beautiful, I am not giving in to male dominance, but actually empowering myself by acknowledging the very real need to be proud of my appearance. So, if the new no. 19 is beautiful and I enjoy it, I will wear it.
*steps off of soap box*
**applause**
Good analysis.
i agree except in this case it appears to be men reclaiming beauty for women, and framing the feminist movement as a move away from femininity.
Does he have a point that women’s emancipation was at its height in the 1970s, and by extension, is now at a low ebb? I guess that’s what the beauty industry is hoping for, much easier to market to people who aspire to be pretty clones than real people.
Anyway back to topic – can’t wait to try the new No. 19! Yay pretty!
Are you saying that you don’t feel that many women moved away from “femininity” in their efforts to create equality? I feel that there’s a lot of evidence to the contrary–hairy armpits and shoulder pads being some of the more obvious external examples. Don’t get me wrong, I think a woman is still “womanly” with hairy pits, but I don’t think it was established as a counter-culture norm simply because women were tired of clean-shaved underarms. Similarly, I think no. 19 is one those disarmingly nontraditional fragrances that is nearly male–and certainly could be worn by a very masculine man without causing much of a stir (except that it’s not ozone-laden!).
I agree Marjorie Rose (nice nice name by the way). Forgive my possible lapses in accuracy but I believe Guy Robert said when making Amouage Gold, a perfume must, above all else, smell beautiful. I agree and that’s the only reason I wear any fragrance. Bring on the Poudre and it better be beautiful!
This is exactly the sort of debate I’d just as soon stay out of…will only say that I don’t think perfumers need enter this debate in order to sell perfume, and so I don’t know why on earth they’re bringing it up. They’re bound to offend at least a portion of their audience in doing so!
No19 Poudre is one aspect and I might agree with you if there wasn’t the masculine aspect. Have you smelled Bleu? It is a perfume that says: “I am a man. But I can’t bother to look for something that doesn’t smell generic”
Good point – stereotypical works both ways!
so women having rights = I’ll walk all over you?
LOL — I’ll bet he’s regretting that little turn of a phrase right about now.
Hopefully he is. But it so often happens that, with a so-called ‘slip of the tongue’, someone can reveal what they actually truly believe.
I wonder if he was struggling for the right words in English? I hope it’s something like that.
Yes, and we don’t have the context, just the quote. So to be fair, maybe he’s been taken out of context.
But you do have the context…there’s a link to the article. I hope nobody is complaining without having read the whole article 🙂
Ack! But I left it out! Just added it. Very very sorry. I can’t believe nobody directly complained — like hey idiot, where’s the original article??
I don’t think first-wave feminism had a “’I’ll walk all over you’ aspect.” More like “I’ll walk on my own, thank you.” If first wave feminists were able to walk all over men, there wouldn’t have been a need for first wave feminism.
I get what Sheldrake is trying to say – No.19 is historically significant as a resonance of women’s lib — but boy does his choice of words betray some deeply-ingrained gender bias. Like when people call assertive women “strident.” Maybe Sheldrake needs to spend some time with younger people? :/
Also, the fact that a FIFI (was it a Specialist’s Prize) this year went to “Like This,” when the other winners were predictable dinosaurs like Bleu de Chanel and Belle d’Opium, shows that this there’s a real hunger within the industry for forward-thinking perfumery.
He should also get his facts straight: the “first wave of feminism” occurred in the mid-to-late 19th and early 20th centuries (Seneca Falls, suffrage, etc.). The movements of the late sixties and the seventies are actually second-wave feminism.
To reiterate what Ann said: shut up and make the formulas.
Thanks, that was going to be my comment exactly. I wonder what Sheldrake would make of the Pankhurst women. He’d be running fast in the other direction, by the sound of it.
Christopher, we will keep proudly wearing our Chanel No 19. And if it turns out we don’t like your No 19 Poudre, be assured we will say so. Assertively.
I think I’d much rather my perfume remain apolitical. Is that too much to ask?! Why can’t they just make a gorgeous scent, then leave the analysis to sensible people like, well, us lol.
hello everybody! you know what, i read your comments, i read wha was commented and have to say i didn’t take any of their words so strong. for me Polge simply said that Poudre is more feminine meaning it doesn’t have that message that No 19 had at its time. seroiusly, i wouldn’t dig too much into that, especially that we just have these short quotes. but i get your points, just for me it wasn’t anything too weird.
Ouch! I wonder if a read oof the whole thing is much help in this discussion:
“No 19 Poudré has everything No 19 has, but it is much more comfortable,” says Sheldrake, the idea behind it being to attract a new customer into the fold as opposed to encouraging the original No 19 devotee to defect. “It’s gone from feminist to femininity. It’s a very clean and sexy smell. I think women are looking for comfort, for reassurance and because of that No 19 Poudré is in keeping with the modern era. There’s a lot of aggression out there and this is a cocoon, a perfume very much for yourself.”
“It’s more modern, yes,” Polge concludes, “if that word means anything any more, and more feminine, certainly. No 19 Poudré is a new impression of No 19 and a better fit for today.”
Gone from ‘feminist to femininity’, eh?
I do agree that there is a lot of aggession out there.
But it’s not necessarily feminists’ fault.
In order to overcome gender-based oppression in the first place, women became tough out of nesessity(sp?). Then after having won some seriously hard fought -for victories, kept that toughness about them as time progressed. I see it every day in women, especially younger women who would do Wollstonecraft and the original suffergettes proud. Sometimes I’m even a little shocked by the aggression displayed out there by women, so perhaps this guy was onto something after all. I think he’s just pointing out that the frag can represent a kind of sanctuary where women can take off all that armor and just chill.
Hey, there’s an error in the article! The Luca Turin quote in the article was actually written by Tania Sanchez, if my Guide is correct. I’m afraid I remember because it wasn’t one of my favorite reviews by her. (She has lots of really insightful, uniquely funny reviews as well as those that stand up for so-called “ball-busters”, thank heavens.)
Sharp eye, Erin!