answering questions
Right now, somewhat behind schedule - like in in all things I do lately- I am answering a few interview questions. And one did not let me go…dealing with synthetics in my perfumery work. Why I employ man made compounds. Well, why not?
I remember my first “real” perfume, a heavy orange flower, smoky , spicy blend, that lasts for ever on skin, for sure not IFRA compatible (too much eugenol, I’d guess) but still one of W.’s favorite.
If I compare this with later fragrances where I employed synthetics: worlds apart! Looking at it from a distance: It is the inner light that is missing. If I would do this fragrance again, I knew what to add and what to leave off….and trust me, it would not only be synthetics. But a few man made compounds might help it, like Lilial, adding a touch flower powder power, or a hint ambroxan to make it ambra-woody lighter, more vibrant….
A final remark here: The more I think about it, the more I find the distinction between synthetics and naturals obsolete. It is what you do with them.
And now: Back to the interview questions….
October 18th, 2006 at 3:35 pm
I share your idea about man made materials. While I do love the natural materials and love to use them I’m happy that we are able to use the man made materials as well. It wouldn’t satisfy me to use only naturals, like it wouldn’t satisfy me to use only pre made compounded bases made by other perfumers and just blending them together. I want to build up the perfume my self, understand the chemical structure of the naturals and give my own twist to it, for example build a rose that I had in mind and not only have the choise of the rose absolutes that are available, I want to have the choise to mold it the way I had it in mind with naturals or man made materials. The man made materials in this case gives the oppurtunity to use single aroma chemicals to enhance one factor of the rose.
It’s like cooking, for example when I cook I wouldn’t be proud about the meal if I only used pre made mixes that I bought in the mall, it’s only satisfying when I made it all by my self. Understanding the ingredients that I use, get in touch with the ingredients and put a little love in it. LOL
October 18th, 2006 at 5:26 pm
Andy, I smile when I read this, because I too was recently thinking of the basically nonsensical quality of this distinction, and remembering an episode that took place when I was a kid in a shoe store. I picked up a shoe with a label inside that read, “Manmade upper.” I then stood in the store for fifteen minutes, looking at the bottom of the shoe, then the top of the shoe, then the bottom, trying to figure out how the bottom of the shoe came into being.
Aside from the odd unaltered item like raw carrots, nearly all the artifacts of human life are manmade. Everything we use we make in some way or another out of materials from the earth, because where else are we going to get it? (The shipping cost from Mars is outrageous.) I still don’t understand the difference between natural distillations, macerations, and tinctures, using techniques taken from chemists (or their progenitors, the alchemists), and the mixtures and precipitations considered to result in synthetics. For example, vanillin is commonly synthesized from wood, what seems a very natural material, but vanillin that originates from wood pulp is considered synthetic, while vanillin extracted from fermented vanilla beans is considered natural. The most important difference seems to be not the process itself but the complexity of the final product, which makes “naturals” more interesting and gives them character, but can make them difficult to produce consistently and to work with in a mixture. At any rate, nobody with any sense would deny the extraordinary beauty of a rose attar or a jasmine absolute, but likewise, what sensible person would deny the beauty of hydroxycitronellal-based Diorissimo?
In other words, the whole shoe is manmade. The important thing is if the shoe fits. :)
October 18th, 2006 at 9:16 pm
Dear Jenny, thank you for your comment. I think the key is -as you said- the choice of the molding material…
And dear Tania
So nice to read from you. I was touched when I read “Diorissimo” because I had in mind to bring Diorissimo up in this post but didn’t . I personally would start to yelling at someone who tells me that a rose absolute is not beautiful. It simply wouldn’t be true. and still, the rose absolute is man made, and I think we as human beings can be proud on ourselves that we managed after some 10′000 years of mental evolution to capture this rose in a golden liquid that comes pretty close to the original. And then, we can also be proud to do the next step…adding some linalool ;-)
October 19th, 2006 at 2:24 pm
I enjoy this kind of discouse, because it brings out the passions.
No one is neutral in this arena !
For me, it is like any form of art or beauty-
If it is good design, it will always be good design…
I simply refuse to quantify or qualify it.
It has its own merit, regardless of time or space, and age has NOTHING whatsoever to do with its intrinsic value.
October 19th, 2006 at 6:13 pm
Ach ja , Chayaruchama, you are so right my dear! I totally agree: If it is good design, it is good design. Un point c’est tout.
Fragrant wishes