For me, the fact that it is still a ‘product’ is why perfumery is not art. There is an artistic limit with perfume; the fragrance stays in the box or in the bottle and then when it’s sprayed on a person, it’s only about embellishing.
— Perfumer Francis Kurkdjian, weighing in on the art vs design debate. Read more at Is It Art Or Perfume At Maison Francis Kurkdjian at MiND Magazine.
That’s true with a lot of things we consider art; take film for example. Even capital-A “art” (like, paintings, sculpture, etc.) is often commissioned by rich people, so it’s a product too.
True, but you expect capital-A art to be priced based on its perceived future value instead of its immediate decorative purpose. Obviously not the case with perfume.
The comparison with film is closer — we usually think of films as art if they emphasize aesthetic purpose over commercial concerns, we think of them as entertainment if they emphasize commercial concerns over aesthetic purpose.
What interested me about the quote was that it’s what most perfumers seem to say — that is, most perfumers (at least, those I’ve seen quoted) do not consider perfumery to be an art form. And that was on my mind (again) because of Angie’s recent review of Burr’s Dior book. The main “entities” that support his view of perfume as art are commercial brands, not perfumers.
Oh yes, I just think it’s more of a spectrum than an on-off switch (commercial product vs. non-commercial non-product). Maybe perfumers don’t see it as an artform because they feel shackled by the briefs and the firms they report to?