8 thoughts on “Persolaise Review: Dior – The Perfumes by Chandler Burr (Rizzoli; 2014)

  1. Thanks for this very balanced review. I personally happen to think it's a bullshit "new criticism" type of approach to decontextualize perfumes from their creators, commodity/marketing environment, cultural olfactory context and very nature as scents only to reconnect them to painting (why not music, which is equally immaterial?) and then, of all things, to Dior the man (biographical fallacy, anyone?). It seems entirely arbitrary, while at the same time serving a more indirect form of marketing requirement for the company. I am aware we are dealing with a high-end coffee-table book, not scholarship proper, yet it leaves me with an aftertaste of sorts (not improved by Burr's insistent protestations of authorial autonomy). Anyhow, with Burr the author and Dior the subject, is there at least an attempt (openly or as subtext) at queering the perfumes, I wonder?

    1. Duke Of Pall Mall, thanks very much for your comment. Yes, I've often wondered why people (critics?) don't try to make a stronger case for linking perfume with music, rather than with paintings. I think musical composition and perfume composition have more in common than we currently admit.

      As for queering the perfumes, I'm not sure. It's not something that struck me. Dior's sexuality is mentioned, but not foregrounded.

  2. Thanks for this great article, Sir! I was intrigued by the work Mr Burr is doing at MAD. Speaking as a fragrance lover, I suppose I love the opportunity to explore other avenues such as art or history or what have you via perfume. I think because I am doing so from the basis of an already established interest, it makes the process of learning something new more meaningful to me because I am doing it through something I already love. However, not having had the opportunity to take in these exhibitions first hand, I suppose my only reservation would be just how well the connections were explored and not just presented in a way to attempt to reinforce the concept of perfume as art. I mean I already feel that it is, but I don't necessarily need it to be shoved down my throat either. Great concept though no doubt.

    1. BGirl, thanks for stopping by. I never saw Burr's MAD exhibition, so I can't really comment. But I take your point about getting the feeling that some of these ideas are being shoved down our throats.

  3. Fantastic review! I agree completely with your reservations: far too many -isms which aren't helpful for anyone without an art history background (i.e. most people, myself included), and not enough about the perfumers themselves! Burr's writing style is beautiful and evocative, but unfortunately I do prize function over form – and in this case, it does seem as though its function is as a coffee-table book: pretty to look at, nice to flip through, but ultimately lacking in answers to the serious questions that you have posed.

    1. Vagabond, thanks very much for your comment. Yes, I agree. I enjoyed reading several of the perfume descriptions, but I admit I was frustrated by the fact that the book didn't address a few serious issues.

I love hearing from my readers, so please feel free to write a comment or ask a question.