Latest / Soft Ratios Research / Through smoke (on perfume)

Transcript

Through smoke (on perfume) · Soft Ratios Research

• 0:09
  Figure: Soft Ratios Research.
• 0:12
  Ground: The voices are synthetic [pause] no act, just the thinking.
• 0:19
  Figure: Hoyd Breton, a designer at Soft Ratios Studio, teaching himself in the open [pause] which works better with a reply. [pause] If this is interesting, write a review with your thoughts.
• 0:30
  Ground: One subject at a time, twice a week [pause] Tuesday and Thursday. [pause] Today, perfume.
• 0:37
  Figure: Start in the tannery. Grasse — a hill town above Cannes — in the Middle Ages, and it stinks. It's a leather town. They soak hides in urine and oak bark, and the whole place reeks.
• 0:50
  Ground: And that same town becomes the perfume capital of the world.
• 0:54
  Figure: Through gloves, of all things. Catherine de' Medici marries into the French court in 1533 and brings the Italian fashion for scented gloves. The Grasse tanners start macerating local flowers in animal fat to cover the stench of the leather — a tanner named Jean de Galimard presents her a scented pair. By 1614 they're calling themselves glove-perfumers.
• 1:19
  Ground: And then the leather loses. Taxes on hides go up, and what's left is the flowers. The perfume outlived the thing it was invented to hide.
• 1:29
  Figure: Which is the right place to start, because the word points backward at smoke. Perfume — per fumum. Latin. Through smoke. It began as incense: frankincense, myrrh, burned so the scent would climb to the gods.
• 1:44
  Ground: So here's what everyone assumes about the stuff. That it's about abundance. A great perfume is a lavish thing — more flowers, more ingredients, more richness. Luxury as accumulation. The bottle on the counter is selling you excess.
• 2:01
  Figure: Rome would agree with you. By the first century the empire was burning something like two thousand eight hundred tons of imported frankincense a year. Nero, at one banquet, spent a fortune on a waterfall of rose petals — so many that one guest was smothered under them and died.
• 2:18
  Ground: Killed by luxury. That's the maximalist dream taken all the way to its end.
• 2:25
  Figure: And it's the opposite of where the art lands. The whole history runs one direction — from addition toward subtraction. From that petal-avalanche to a man at Hermès who says a great perfume is what you get by taking things away.
• 2:39
  Ground: That's the arc I want to walk. How does an art that starts as a burning pile of resin end up as something closer to a haiku?
• 2:48
  Figure: It starts by learning to pull the soul out of a flower. And that's not a European invention — the technology of extraction comes out of the Islamic Golden Age. Al-Kindi, the Arab philosopher, writing around the ninth century, has a Book of the Chemistry of Perfume with a hundred and seven recipes. The still he uses is the alembic — the word is still Arabic.
• 3:11
  Ground: And the rose.
• 3:12
  Figure: Avicenna — Ibn Sina, the Persian polymath, a little later — is credited with perfecting steam distillation of essential oil from flowers. He starts with the rose. Before him, perfumes were oily macerations. After him you have rosewater, and an industry.
• 3:30
  Ground: There's something moving in that, and a little brutal. The first move of the whole craft is a violence dressed as tenderness. You're trying to hold a smell that only exists while the flower is alive, and to do it you have to destroy the flower.
• 3:47
  Figure: It takes about ten tons of Centifolia petals to yield a kilo of rose oil. Natural May rose absolute runs three to six thousand dollars a kilo, against fifty to two hundred for synthetic rose aroma chemicals.
• 4:00
  Ground: How do you even get the smell out of something as delicate as jasmine?
• 4:05
  Figure: You don't, not by force — you can't boil jasmine, it just dies. [pause] So for the fragile flowers they used enfleurage. You lay the blossoms on trays of cold animal fat, and the fat quietly drinks the scent over days. Then you wash the perfumed fat with alcohol, and what's left is an absolute. [pause] It's astonishingly gentle and astonishingly wasteful. All that labor, all those hands, for almost nothing. So around the nineteen-thirties Grasse gave it up commercially. [pause] Solvent extraction had arrived. Dissolve the aromatics in hexane, evaporate it, and you get a waxy concrete; wash that in ethanol and you get the absolute. Faster, cheaper, at scale. And later, carbon dioxide under pressure — leaves no trace, pulls far more out. One study on camphor got over four percent yield against under half a percent for old steam distillation.
• 5:03
  Ground: So even the extraction has its own little arc. Gentle and human and hopeless, giving way to efficient and invisible.
• 5:13
  Figure: Keep that in view; it repeats. Because the real hinge — the moment the art stops copying nature — is a single molecule, in eighteen eighty-two. [pause] Houbigant. A perfumer, Paul Parquet, makes Fougère Royale — Royal Fern — built around coumarin, a lab-isolated molecule with the hay-like smell of tonka bean. [pause] Two things make it a revolution. It uses a synthetic. But more than that: it copies nothing. Ferns have no smell. He invented an abstract idea of green freshness that exists nowhere in the world. [pause] His line was, if God had given the fern a smell, this would be that smell. [pause] Seven years on, Aimé Guerlain's Jicky blends synthetics and naturals into something that resembles no single thing. The parallel is exact — synthetics did for perfume what abstraction did for painting. They freed it from having to be a portrait of a rose.
• 6:19
  Ground: I want to resist that a little. Because freed from nature is the story the industry loves to tell, and it's also very convenient — synthetics are cheap and patentable, naturals are neither. When you tell me a synthetic rose is just a new color on the palette, part of me hears a supplier defending the margin.
• 6:42
  Figure: Fair — and I'll come back to it, because the regulation history bears you out more than you'd like. But on the art itself: take the aldehydes in Chanel No. 5, 1921. Ernest Beaux overdosed them — by design, or, as the legend has it, a lab assistant's accidental full pour. That fizzy, clean, cold-laundry sparkle. No flower smells like that. Coco Chanel didn't want a soliflore, a single-flower scent. She wanted, in her words, a woman's perfume with the scent of a woman. Abstraction was the only way there.
• 7:17
  Ground: So the synthetic isn't fake. It's the part that couldn't be picked.
• 7:21
  Figure: Nature can't hand you clean winter. Or the space that Iso E Super makes — a woody, transparent almost-nothing, patented in 1973, made now at around three thousand tons a year. Escentric Molecules built a whole fragrance, Molecule 01, out of basically that one material. Three materials form a quiet trinity of modern niche perfumery — Iso E Super for space, Hedione for light, and Ambroxan for skin warmth. Space, skin, light. None of them portraits of anything.
• 7:57
  Ground: You keep reaching for painting. But the perfumers themselves reach for music.
• 8:04
  Figure: Constantly. Beaux said it straight — it is like writing music, each component has a definite tonal value, I can compose a waltz or a funeral march. And it isn't just a pretty figure. Back in 1857 an English chemist, Septimus Piesse, wrote The Art of Perfumery and argued there was an octave of odours like an octave in music. He mapped about fifty smells onto a musical staff — sharp smells high, heavy smells low — and called it the odophone. That helped popularize perfume's language of notes, chords, and harmonies.
• 8:40
  Ground: And the perfumer literally sits at an organ.
• 8:43
  Figure: A perfume organ — a tiered semicircular desk of little bottles, arranged like a keyboard.
• 8:49
  Ground: Here's where I get suspicious, though. The pyramid — top, heart, base — it's taught as if it's the truth of how a scent is built. Is it? Or is it a diagram we tell customers?
• 9:03
  Figure: It's real as physics and mostly fiction as marketing, both at once. The physics is volatility, shaped by molecular size and chemical structure. Jean Carles gave us the top-heart-base language. The lightest molecules evaporate first — citrus, lavender, the aldehydes — gone in five, fifteen minutes. The heart, rose and jasmine, carries two to six hours. The base — sandalwood, vetiver, musk, oakmoss — is least volatile, often clinging to skin for many hours, sometimes a day or more. That part is true.
• 9:37
  Ground: And the fiction?
• 9:39
  Figure: The notes printed on the box. Those are often impressions, not the formula — a story sold with the bottle. And plenty of modern scents are deliberately flat, linear, no three-act structure at all. So the pyramid is a helpful diagram, not a law. Treat the note list like a menu written by the marketing department.
• 10:00
  Ground: Then here's the question underneath all of it. Why does any of this move us so much? A smell can put you back in a kitchen you left forty years ago faster than any photograph. Why smell, and not sight?
• 10:13
  Figure: Anatomy. And it's not a metaphor, it's wiring. Every other sense — sight, sound, touch, taste — routes first through the thalamus, the brain's relay and filter, before it reaches emotion and memory. Smell doesn't. It goes from the olfactory bulb straight into the limbic system — the amygdala, which is emotion, and the hippocampus, which is memory. No relay. A Harvard neuroscientist, Sandeep Robert Datta, puts it that the system seems to have evolved to hardwire smell into those centers.
• 10:47
  Ground: So a scent doesn't feel like a memory so much as a seizure of one — the past grabbing you, rather than you reaching for it. Olfaction skips the thalamic relay on its way to the primary olfactory regions tied to emotion and memory. Which helps explain why an odor-cued memory can feel so immediate, so emotional.
• 11:09
  Figure: And the research backs the feeling without overselling it. Rachel Herz at Brown — her fMRI work in 2004 — showed a personal perfume produces more amygdala activation and more reported emotion than the matching photograph. There's a shorthand for it, the LOVER model: odor memories are Limbic, Old, Vivid, Emotional, and Rare — rare meaning you don't rehearse them, so they never get worn smooth.
• 11:37
  Ground: Older, too, you said. Not just stronger.
• 11:40
  Figure: Willander and Larsson, 2006 — smell-cued memories skew earlier in life than word or image cues, disproportionately from your first decade. Words and pictures peak your memories in the ten-to-thirty range. Smell reaches further back, disproportionately into the first decade of life.
• 11:59
  Ground: Which must mean those memories are truer. Realer. If it reaches that far back and hits that hard —
• 12:07
  Figure: That's the leap I won't make, and Herz herself is careful about it. More emotional, older, rarer — yes. More accurate? No. The vividness is a feeling, not a fidelity. The smell of the kitchen can be shattering and still be wrong about what happened there. We mistake the intensity for truth. They are not the same thing.
• 12:29
  Ground: That's a hard one to sit with. The sense that feels most like unmediated memory is not necessarily more reliable.
• 12:38
  Figure: It's the most moving one. Which, for the whole enterprise, is almost more useful than accuracy — and more dangerous.
• 12:45
  Ground: How does the nose even tell thousands of smells apart? There can't be a receptor for every scent.
• 12:52
  Figure: There isn't, and that's the elegant part — Linda Buck and Richard Axel won the Nobel for it in 2004. We carry around a thousand odorant-receptor genes — about three percent of all human genes. Only about four hundred are functional; the other six hundred are non-functional pseudogenes. And yet four hundred working receptors let us tell apart something like ten thousand smells, or more.
• 13:17
  Ground: Four hundred keys, thousands of chords.
• 13:21
  Figure: The name for it is combinatorial coding. One receptor answers to many odorants; one odorant lights up many receptors. A smell is a chord, not a key. So Piesse's chord metaphor happens to echo the biology — though his actual sound-to-scent mapping was speculative. We recognize a scent the way we recognize a chord — by the whole combination, never the single note.
• 13:45
  Ground: So bring me to the subtraction. If the art starts as a burning pile of resin, who taught it to whisper?
• 13:53
  Figure: Two men, a lineage. Edmond Roudnitska first — a philosopher-perfumer up in the hills above Grasse, who genuinely believed perfumery was a fine art and wrote books arguing it. He studied his raw materials, someone said, the way Darwin studied beetles. His Diorissimo, 1956 — a lily-of-the-valley so true it's uncanny. And here's the trick: lily-of-the-valley yields no essential oil. You can't extract it. So he composed the flower entirely from other materials. An abstraction that reads as more real than the real thing.
• 14:28
  Ground: A fake that out-trues the truth.
• 14:31
  Figure: His definition of beauty is the best line in the whole subject: a beautiful perfume is one which gives us a shock — a sensory one followed by a psychological one. [pause] And his disciple takes it all the way. Jean-Claude Ellena, born in Grasse, in-house at Hermès from 2004 to 2016. He works with twenty, thirty materials where others use many times more. He calls his perfumes watercolor sketches, chamber music, haiku.
• 15:01
  Ground: And ikebana.
• 15:02
  Figure: His own words — that ikebana, arranging a whole bouquet from very few stems, ideally corresponded to what he wanted a perfume to be. And on the craft: beginners want to add, to augment, to impress — more power, more diffusion, more notes. His instinct is the reverse. If you can say a whole essay in a few lines, you do so.
• 15:25
  Ground: That's the thing I keep turning over. Subtraction isn't about having less. It's about trust. [pause] When you overload a scent — more notes, more power — you're covering every exit, making sure nobody can miss the point. It's anxiety wearing the costume of generosity. [pause] The minimalist does the frightening thing instead. Leaves the gap, and trusts you to cross it. Ellena says he doesn't cultivate mystery — he prefers clarity, that to give to understand is to offer enjoyment. [pause] That isn't coldness. It's respect. He's assuming there's someone on the other end capable of finishing the sentence. Which is the whole difference between decorating a person and addressing one.
• 16:19
  Figure: Now I have to break the arc, because it's too clean, and the record won't hold it. If subtraction is the summit, explain Germaine Cellier.
• 16:27
  Ground: The chemist.
• 16:28
  Figure: One of the first prominent women perfumers, working in the nineteen-forties, and her whole method is the opposite of restraint — the violent overdose. Bandit, 1944, a savage leather scent built on about one percent of a material, isobutyl quinoline, that practically sears the nose. Vent Vert — the first green perfume, an explosion of eight percent galbanum. Fracas — the great tuberose. These aren't watercolors. They're loud, they're extreme, and they're masterpieces. Nobody would rank them below Ellena.
• 17:05
  Ground: So subtraction isn't better.
• 17:07
  Figure: It's a point of view, not a peak. That's the correction I'd set against my own thesis. The arc from addition to subtraction is real as a history — the art did learn it could whisper. But less is more isn't a law of quality; it's one stance among several. Cellier proved you can also shout and be an artist. A perfumer, Pierre Bourdon, said her scents were all completely different the way Kubrick's films are — the only constant was the nerve.
• 17:37
  Ground: Then maybe the lesson isn't subtract. It's have a point of view strong enough that it doesn't please everyone. Ellena's is clarity. Cellier's is nerve. What they share is the refusal to hedge.
• 17:51
  Figure: That I'll stand behind. The failure isn't too much or too little. It's the fragrance designed by committee to offend no one — and that is exactly what the industry mostly produces.
• 18:03
  Ground: Say more about the industry, because I think that's the twist people don't know.
• 18:08
  Figure: Here it is. Most perfume on the luxury counter — the fashion house didn't make it. They outsource the work. A brand writes a brief — the market, the concept, the price point — and sends it to three, four, six competing suppliers at once. Each assigns perfumers to submit a formula. Around ninety-five percent of submissions get rejected.
• 18:29
  Ground: So the name on the bottle is almost never the name of the author.
• 18:34
  Figure: Almost never. And the real authors work for four companies most people can't name. IFF, Givaudan, Symrise, dsm-firmenich — the Big Four — account for more than half of the global flavors-and-fragrances market. And the people who actually compose — IFRA says fewer than a thousand fully qualified perfumers exist on earth, each trained seven to ten years to carry thousands of smells in memory.
• 19:00
  Ground: Fewer than a thousand. That's smaller than a lot of villages. An entire dimension of everyone's emotional life — the smell of a person you loved, a scent that stops you dead in the street — composed by fewer than a thousand largely anonymous hands, working under other people's names.
• 19:20
  Figure: Ghostwriters of the affective brain. The training runs through the suppliers' own schools — Givaudan's, founded in 1946, takes about three students a year. Most never own their formulas, and never see their name on a box. [pause] And now, back to what you smelled out earlier. You said the synthetics-freed-us story was suspiciously convenient. The regulation history is where that bites. Since 1973 there's been a safety body, IFRA, restricting allergenic materials. The most consequential is oakmoss — the dark, damp, forest-floor base of the entire chypre family. Restricted hard from around 2001, down to a tenth of a percent, and then the EU banned its key allergens outright. That regulation came into force in 2017; products with those allergens couldn't be placed on the market from 2019, with full withdrawal due by 2021.
• 20:18
  Ground: Which means the classics got quietly rewritten.
• 20:22
  Figure: Nearly every classic chypre was forced into reformulation. Guerlain's Mitsouko became the most famous example — its soul was oakmoss. And here's the tension you named: natural materials keep getting restricted while newer synthetics are permitted. Some read that as safety. Others argue it quietly favors the big supplier houses.
• 20:44
  Ground: So the new colors on the palette were also, sometimes, just the colors that survived the regulator. That's less romantic.
• 20:51
  Figure: Guerlain's own nose, Thierry Wasser, did engineer an oakmoss stripped of the offending molecules and rebuilt Mitsouko — and that version got praised. So it's not a simple villainy. But the suspicion was earned. The palette isn't neutral. It's shaped by who profits from which color.
• 21:10
  Ground: And the flowers themselves? The Grasse fields — are they even still there?
• 21:16
  Figure: Barely. Early nineteen-hundreds, Grasse had something like twelve thousand acres under flowers. Today it's around a hundred and twenty. A collapse of nearly ninety-nine percent — cities ate the land, and Egypt and Morocco grew it cheaper. Jasmine harvests fell from nearly two thousand tons a year to under fifteen.
• 21:36
  Ground: So what's holding up the last of it?
• 21:39
  Figure: Exclusive luxury grower contracts, mostly. A key one began in 1987, when Chanel's perfumer Jacques Polge partnered exclusively with the Mul family — Grasse growers, five, six generations, growing for Chanel and nobody else. Their farm now grows something like ninety percent of the region's jasmine, all of it for one house. A single thirty-milliliter bottle of No. 5 extrait holds about a thousand of those jasmine flowers and twelve May roses.
• 22:08
  Ground: A luxury brand as the accidental conservator of a landscape.
• 22:13
  Figure: And meanwhile the lab keeps advancing on the field. There's now biosynthetic patchouli — Clearwood, 2014, brewed by fermentation, like beer. A fermented ambergris substitute. Rose-oil ingredients have reportedly been fermented in fifty-thousand-liter vats. The soul-of-the-flower that Avicenna pulled out with steam, they can now grow in a tank.
• 22:37
  Ground: So strip away the myth — the abundance, the more-is-more — what's actually left standing?
• 22:46
  Figure: Two things the whole history keeps circling. One: perfume is an art that unfolds in time and then disappears. You put it on, it opens, it changes for hours, and then it's gone — and tomorrow it's the same disappearance again. Ellena says that's proof it can't be possessed. You can own the bottle. You can't own the wearing of it.
• 23:06
  Ground: That undoes the luxury logic entirely. [pause] The counter sells you a possession — a heavy bottle, a permanent object. But the actual art is the least ownable thing there is. It happens once, on you, and then it's over. [pause] It's closer to music than to a painting. And closer to a conversation than to music — because a conversation also happens once, and never comes back quite the same. [pause] The value was never in the having. It's in the passing. Which might be the most un-luxury idea imaginable, sold as the summit of luxury.
• 23:44
  Figure: And there's a place that refuses the disappearing. The Osmothèque, in Versailles — founded in 1990 by a perfumer named Jean Kerléo — a scent archive. Thousands of perfumes, many of them discontinued, kept in a cool cellar under a blanket of inert gas so they don't oxidize. Curators who reconstruct lost formulas from the original recipes — but only if every original raw material still exists. If one is gone, they won't fake it.
• 24:15
  Ground: A library of things designed to vanish. There's something almost defiant in that.
• 24:22
  Figure: They preserve — and where they can, reconstruct — Coty's Chypre, Houbigant's Fougère Royale, and Guerlain's Jicky from archived recipes, protected under argon. It's the closest anyone has come to a recording of a smell.
• 24:36
  Ground: And the authors stay invisible even there. The formula's preserved. The hand isn't credited.
• 24:42
  Figure: That's the shape of the whole thing, isn't it. The most emotional sense we have, wired straight past thought into memory — and the people who compose for it work under other names, on materials that vanish as you wear them, in a town whose fields are almost gone.
• 24:59
  Ground: It's the opposite of everything design usually wants. Design wants to be seen, to persist, to be signed. This is unsigned, temporary, and it reaches deeper than any of it.
• 25:11
  Figure: Maybe those go together. Maybe the reason it reaches so deep is precisely that it doesn't announce itself — no name, no permanence, nothing to weigh. It just arrives before you can raise an objection.
• 25:24
  Ground: The most powerful thing in the room is the one that never says its name, and doesn't stay.
• 25:30
  Figure: An art that spent thousands of years learning it could also whisper.
• 25:35
  Ground: If the thing that reaches us deepest is the one we can't keep, can't see, and can't even credit to a name — what does that do to our certainty that the things worth most are the ones we get to hold on to?