Analyzing

Wet dog: Chasing the villain

5:52

This clip features a puzzling mystery Christophe encounters when developing a new scent for Strangelove NYC

In most cases, a perfume is meant to be a pleasurable odor. Technically, it is a mixture of essential oils, aroma compounds, and solvents used to provide an agreeable scent. Yet, the process is more complex than often explained. A useful fragrant ingredient might turn out to be an objectionable odor in a specific combination or concentration: Skatole (from the Greek root skato – meaning «dung») for example, is an indole with a strong fecal odor at high concentrations, but it is often used in perfumery at a much lower concentration where it has a pleasing floral scent. Following the development of a jewel-like fragrance we witnessed how Christophe Laudamiel and Christoph Hornetz suddenly discovered an unpleasant facet, an annoying animalic note. Laudamiel calls it a «wet dog» that only appears after some delay. The two perfumers are puzzled. The phenomenon seems to be really special, if also undesired. They investigate the composition, ingredient by ingredient. In the end, the detective search for malodor delivered a suspect for which Christoph Hornetz had noticed the same unexpected effect in other previous instances: Natactone®. The odor of this chemical compound is often described as «tropical coconut, tonka bean and tobacco». Thus, this clip tells the detective story of a puzzling mystery.

The beauty contest

1:50

Longevity, projection and sillage is not the full story...

Following an experimental approach, the perfumer repeatedly needs to evaluate the results of his formula revisions. This clip zooms in on this specific situation. «This is gorgeous!». Christophe seems to be happy. We witness a deep satisfaction. The evaluation goes beyond longevity, projection and sillage – criteria that are often used to measure the technical performance of a perfume. All this might happen silently under the surface. However, what we see is the creator’s deep affection for his creation, as if he were treating it as an attractive person.

Scent triangle: blotter-nose-formula

0:42

Fieldnotes are accounts that capture experiences and observations a researcher makes while doing fieldwork.

There is no one «natural», «correct» or even «objective» way for writing fieldnotes. Instead, depending on the researcher’s perception and interpretation, descriptions of the same situation can greatly differ. Yet, some observations are more compelling than others. Given our background in social and organization studies, the field of perfumery was completely new to us. Here is an excerpt from an early fieldnote Claus wrote when following Christophe’s silent practice as shown on this clip:

«The materiality and object-like qualities of scents are really special: on the one hand, the scent appears completely elusive, free of any kind of materiality whatsoever. Indeed, paper strips are necessary in order to make the scent tangible. If not, the scent would literally disappear in thin air, without anyone getting hold of it. Scents are unstable and changing: what smells flowery today, might tip over tomorrow into something fruity. What might appear good on the paper strip can prove unbearable on the skin. Depending on the time and the location, the scent changes its character. In this sense, the scent seems to be missing what usually characterizes an object: A scent is not stable, you can’t take it in your hand and it is usually highly subjective. BUT! The perfumer almost fights with the materiality of the scent: if the raw materials are missing on the shelves, the formula cannot be weighed. Yes indeed, the material proves to be the bottleneck. Even in the largest perfume houses, something is always missing, as Christophe mentioned earlier today. The scent’s materiality thus proves to be the boundary for the perfume development, a boundary that you cannot cross, that you simply have to live with. The materiality of the scent blocks. Scents cannot be recorded and replayed anytime. Scents also cannot be photographed and shown as picture to others. And they certainly cannot be digitalized. But still, one tries to trick the molecules. Because digital formulas are sent around the world as substitutes which outrun the physical logistics. This is what Christophe has done by emailing the formulas for Trust 31, 32, 33 to New York earlier today. But the formula is not a scetch/draft/layout that could be read.  Even a perfumer cannot say anything about a scent by just looking at the formula. Instead, what is necessary in order to say something about the scent is the molecule: material, tangible. In this sense, a formula is different from a score. A formula can only be weighed – correctly or erroneously. There is no interpretation. The scent is only conveyable once the formula materializes into molecules. In this respect, a scent cannot be smelled sketchy or poorly. Either you smell the molecules of the weighed formula or you don’t. There is no bad resolution or compression of a scent, no transfer rate and no question of capacity. A scent is all or nothing, present or gone. So only when the formula materializes do we get to know the scent. And only then can we have an exchange about it on the telephone. If Christophe wants to talk to somebody about a scent, he needs to make sure that he himself and the other person he wants to talk to are exposed to the same molecules. When we smell we are taking molecules in. A scent is absorbed, by being incorporated. The scent becomes a part of our body – we inhale it and take it in. In this sense, a smell is something very personal. A scent molecule that I consume cannot be consumed by anyone else. But when you look at a picture, the same picture is also available to me without us being competitors – the same is true for listening/hearing. A bottle without a formula is meaningless. A formula without a bottle is also meaningless. You need blotter, formula and the human nose: A mutually interdependent scent triangle.»

Olfactory discoveries

1:18

Creativity abounds in myths about natural born talents. Yet, it is the doing that makes the difference.

Perfume-making, without a doubt, is a creative practice. However, myths abound about the creative genius as a natural born talent, capable of transforming everything he touches.  The limitations of this notion of creativity are increasingly recognized. The blackbox of creativity is opened and little things surface: Practices of creativity! Creative people are open to new experiences and revel in the wonder of the unfamiliar.  To paraphrase the  Austrian writer Marie von Ebener-Eschenbach: «Wonder does not exist in those incapable of being surprised.» This and many other videos on scentculture.tube show how Christophe allows himself to experience surprise, puzzlement, or confusion in situations he finds uncertain or unique. In this case we see him openly experiencing the wonder that comes with smelling olfactory materials. He subsequently reflects on the phenomena that overtook him, and speculates on how it reshaped his previous understanding of the materials. It appears a culture of surprise is  essential for a creative economy.