Posted by: Sk | February 21, 2009

3 Nude: a story

It’s after having had a look on the composition of Chanel 5, that the idea arose of conceiving a perfume. Of course, you needed a composition, a name, a bottle and a slogan. (As intellectual game, it’s very interesting, and on top, you may think that you may sell it after.) Thus, the perfume was called first ‘horizon’, while we still hadn’t the composition, and some work on a picture of, of course, Inès de la Fressange, was starting to give the idea for a bottle. Finally, the bottle arose from the mixed feeling that a perfume should necessarily contain almond flower’s scent, because you can get that only in spring. Of course I thought to hide the whole. It’s a fact that I had just met someone who makes some kind of sculptures well enough so as to allow such a production and that I could use some wicked means of seduction in order to send him to jewelry Vazquez and try to convince them of maing an investment. Of course they’d say what the damn a perfume has to do with jewelry and he’d necessarily answer that … this one was a jewel. But then I went to sleep, and although it is true that the whole looked horribly seducing for reasons that may be given, it appeared to my understanding as showing a gravest technical problems. The bottle can simply not be closed, as far as I unerstand it. Even if, yes, even if the upper part (gold) is intelligently separated from the lower(cristal), and you can insert gold on cristal, somehow in order to fix both parts, this would produce a defomation in structure that would have as result a loss on esthetical parameters. On top of that, I’ve never seen gold filigrane on cristal, although who knows.Consequently I could keep my bottle for show. Of course, at 2 o’clock in the morning I had already solved the problem. Gold was substituted by another matter, as well as cristal. The result was indefinitely better and solved the technical problem. But, who’d know what I had kept in the depth of my memory?In the meantime the name had become ‘brume d’horizon’ because for unknown reasons the bottle’s original design was born while I was having in my mind the song ‘je suis seul à Londres/ce dimanche là/dans la brume de Londres,/ le ciel est lila’.The slogan was an answer to Inès de la Fressange’s ‘j’aime mon parfum’, which had appeared to our eyes as little decisive, so that I thought of giving it a more determined touch while putting a coma in front of the continuation, which I omitted on the picture (it must already be a registered slogan, but certainly not as an answer with a coma, I guessed.)In fact, independently of the composition, which is now ready, although I won’t reveal all the elements (just for the pleasure: I took away the muguet and jasmin, because they’re too sweet for nowadays, and the Chinese flower, because quite impossible to get, now), and introduced beside the almond flower two other flowers of little use in the branch, but it was to be original, actually.In fact the bottle is more the answer to a philosophical problem arisen a few weeks to months ago, which I called the fusion of realities in b-mol ( and whose actual name I couldn’t grasp, than the attempt of introducing revolutions in the perfume market. Although.The question finished by having the following name: Traditionally (popular) you learn something by the imitation of something you perceive (see Rublev’s Tarkovkskij), so that popular art is mostly based on reproduction and not on a learning derived from schools and ideologies. Thus, traditionally, you won’t be fined if you hear a song and start singing it at home, or in next door café, and this is how the best singers developped themselves and the most beautiful songs created. Schools though work differently. The introduction of formal patterns as means of transmission (notes, in the case of music, chemistry, in the case of perfumes, etc.), oblige to a definition of concepts such as ‘ideal’ music, painting, etc. under a general concept of beauty which may hide a more or less wicked intentionality. In this case, it is almost of need to insist heavily on property (intellectual) simply because the confusion of different ’schools’ may produce horrible hybrids resulting of the introduction of elements fitting into one context, outside of the context in question. (This is of course a benevolent consideration, but may be accepted as explanation for esthetical reasons – argument of beauty.)I realized that my way of behaving inside of a field that is not mine (esthetical creation) was touched by heavy popular influence obtained in Greece from 1994 to 2003. I’ve always hated artistic schools, as I tended to think that art as such fitted more the popular realm than fixed formal patterns. On the other hand, though, my own education was extremely formal, but limited to the field of philosophy. That both were starting to fuse, I realized about two months ago (workd on panama hat and silver).To show clearly what I mean: popular epic songs, such as ‘El Cid’, ‘Chanson de Roland’, on the same line of tradition than Homer’s Odyssée or War of Troy, get born through the constant repetition through centuries by thousands and thousands of people. The repetition produces changes and alterations so that finally the whole gets fixed into some kind of national mood, spirit or character, which, once obtained, determines the poem in question (it is written down and fixed). This way of proceeding is maintained in Russia and more or less among orthodox countries for many centuries, mainly in painting. There though, there are fixed rules, obliging to respect a certain number of things that can and orthers that can’t be changed.Occidental culture, basing creation on the personal, subjective and ‘inspired’ geniality (when it to be found) tends to protect the possibility someone as a singular person to get into such a mood (some kind of extasis) that allows the sudden, brilliant and condensed expression of more general features into a work of art. Economy, social and cultural patterns are mostly governed by this belief, to the point that law regulates heavily intellectual property and punishes illegal appropriation, which is unthinkable in the first frame.What happens if my affective hooligan irrupts in Rockefeller Centre or sits down for while on the steps of Guerlain shop in Paris? Two bodies of law crash against each other, provoking confusion and indetermination. Two features I tend rather not to adore. And though it is exactly what happens.While trying to fix a line of thought in esthetical patterns, which seems much easier to me, I can’t help treating highly sophisticated fashion like a bird in the wild forest. The bird, source of the inspiration of popular art, will though never claim for compensation, while … Chanel may, or Inès de la Fressange. For the popular, what there is, whatever there is, can be adapted, changed, transformed and becomes through the effort of transformation the personal good of x, in common with ‘y’, who says the same in a different way. Thus, the very popular notion of ‘common’ (which is partly understood as ‘mass’) bases itself on the sharing of production whose final inspiration is supposed to be a common general feature.Upper classes and occidental culture tend to insist more on the underlining of individual characters, of singular geniuses, of subjective differentiation in the point of view. Consequently they like as little sharing their soup as their creations or inspirations.What happens though if through the imposition of patterns of thought obliging everyone being the ’same’ than the other, as some perverted means of creating a notion of ‘common’ based on abstract and indetermined understandings (ideology), both the popular and the individual get mixed into an untasty onion soup?The character of thought shows exactly that: I I pick Chanel, Guerlain or Dior, giving as foundation the popular tradition of behaviour, no law whatsoever will be able to stop my misbehaviour, because the metaphysical pattern as general frame of understanding has already invalidated law itself. But that is not excessively of my liking.To say. I understand that a creation is really some kind of emanation of a popular presence. The interests of the people, their going on coming, their questions and answers are the bases of esthetics and the obligation of submitting the trasformation of esthetical criteria to a common pattern of understanding in order to be appreciated, the foundation of beauty. On the other hand it is obvious that only rare people are able to grasp deepest essences as present in the popular or common or general coming and going and separate themselves from the rest through this very peculiar ability.This ability needs to my understanding some kind of ‘protection’ because you can’t be at the same time grasping universal essences and sit in an office from 8 to 2. Consequently, the creation needs to be paid in a consequent way, that assures the possibility the ‘creator’  spending another 6 months grasping further essences. But, precisely. Should he not be recognizing the origin of his inspiration in a generous way? If it is popular, would he not build up a little factory regrouping people whose ability may transform his inspirations into an appropriate material good, thus enriching those, too, and if it is Chanel (to say) by furthering lines of esthetics that are profitable to the same? Logically, such a ‘generous’ way of seeing will assure his well being in a definite way.This is the answer that is embedded in the esthetical lines embedded in the perfume bottle. Logically, it belongs to Inès de la Fressange … (!)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: