What is a masterpiece?
Masterpiece by its own etymology brings to the fore the creator, the “master” hand who crafter it. Yet it remains a “piece”, a material thing, which can be thus experienced through the sensory world by those who come into contact with it. Very often in perfumery we see the value of Beauty brandished right and left. A beauty which is tangible through smell, obviously. Emmanuel Kant would have a field day, I guess: He describes the direct appeal to the senses as “barbaric”. So are we all barbarians who seek moral refuge in viewing perfumery as an art form? Perhaps! ...(continued below)
Perhaps this is why we have relied on critics to tell us how to interpret what is essentially a field that is largely unknown in its structural core by the general audience. The arcane atmosphere of perfumery, coupled with the secrecy with which it has been veiled for years, has necessitated the input of educated evaluators. And when something is proclaimed a masterpiece, we feel elated, especially if we happen to agree! In artistic terms, the phenomenon of feeling a pre-digested and codified emotion is called Kitsch. Milan Kundera said it best in "The Unbearable Lightness of Being": “Kitsch causes two tears to flow in quick succession. The first tear says: How nice to see children running on the grass! The second tear says: How nice to be moved, together with all mankind, by children running on the grass! It is the second tear that makes kitsch kitsch”.
Kitsch is not only an aesthetically impoverished object which identifies the consumer with a newly acquired status rather than invoking a genuine aesthetic response. It is also the entire Modern Art genre (according to Hermann Broch) since art is made into a purpose in itself and to be consumed as beauty! Additionally, worshipping an art piece ~especially if we are not certain of its authenticity or its well-preserved state or if we do not instinctively like it~ transforms it into a fetish: we do not derive pleasure from it in real time but from the pleasure it had induced in the past! In perfumery this poses a very specific problem, as perfume is by its own nature a commodity to be bought and used within a specific time-frame. What makes a perfume a real masterpiece beyond merely good? Is it only…beauty?
The experience of "beauty" often involves interpreting an entity (a human being, a painting, a perfume...) as being in balance with nature or presenting a view of harmony (in essence, the classical ideal). This harmonious coexistence might in turn produce feelings of attraction and emotional well-being. Because this is a subjective experience, the pronouncement that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is often referenced. Defenders of this view consider beauty to engender a salient experience, reflecting on the meaning of their own existence, therefore imbuing beauty with personal resonance. But let’s revert to Kant: The case of "beauty" differs from mere "agreeableness" nevertheless because, "If [a person] proclaims something to be beautiful, then he requires the same liking from others; he then judges not just for himself but for everyone, and speaks of beauty as if it were a property of things."
So, in perfumes we might ask ourselves using objective criteria:
How well does the fragrance converse what it has to say? (And does it have something to say in the first place?) How well does it integrate into its genre and into its time-frame? How well does it balance the facets and create its message? How well does it stay on skin? Is the perfumer or art director in possession of a distinct style uniquely his/her own? Does the perfume open a new dialogue with those who precede it and those who are following it? And finally, does it lack the pretence to pose as beauty but can it at the same time create passionate discourse? These factors might pave the path to a masterpiece.
Author: Elena Vosnaki
I like Andy's point about reformulation too- should I only love the original formula sheet for Apres L'Ondee say or can I love the tinkered about with one.
Instead of a noun it has become an adjective.
Instead of exemplifying something that is once in a lifetime it is used to describe something once in a day.
So how do we regain the potency of the word? How do we regain the heft of the word so it has meaning again?
I think we have to stop thinking everything has to BE a \"masterpiece\" and instead look to it as a competent piece of art that moves us.
If it has the ability to move others and to encourage differing interpretations then it might approach being called a \"masterpiece\" but as many things that nomenclature requires time and context. In this current society we seem to have neither the patience or the intellectual curiousity to let those twin processes play out and so we take the term \"masterpiece\" and in the end give it equivalence with the word \"awesome\" and unfortunately make it trite and disposable when the opposite should be true.
The word masterpiece has become void of meaning through overuse, surely. And it needed a little recalibrating to revert to its original etymology.
Here we're hoping to open up some discourse on what can be considered a masterpiece and what not, without any bias or ulterior motive behind it. Assuredly, for any discussion on art to have any gravitas we need to apply some objective criteria (there's nothing wrong with liking "trash", nevertheless, as long as we recognise it as such, everyone has their favourite weakenesses, I do too), which was the point of my posing the questions at the end of the article.
It's also not an authoritative pronouncement on our part, but rather an invitation on voicing opinions on how something can be moving and open to various interpretations.
The above doesn't always equate "popular" for fragrances, but it does mean that they stand for something and make us talk about them. Where it leads us is the journey on which Perfumism takes us!