Friday, September 08, 2006

Natural v. Synthetics

Just a short post today because I'm in a twirl over the fact that two stores, one in Dallas, one in Seattle, and two spas, one in Canada, the other in Miami, want to carry my perfumes. I couldn't let this wonderful dialogue, stimulated by an excellent post by the lovely Helg's blog, wafting out from Greece, go unnoticed. Her Perfume Shrine illuminates the oddities and innacuracies in the recent New York Times article by Chandler Burr that attacked the use of natural aromatics in perfume. I posted a link to Helg's entry on the Perfume of Life forum, and I think lovers of perfume - natural or synth! - will enjoy the exchanges and illuminations going on there. I will not even attempt to find an illustration for this entry, since Helg's is the absolute perfect image.

3 comments:

  1. Very interesting thread and topic, Anya, I posted over there too. Again, I would repeat that I don't quite understand the vehemence of the distaste for naturals displayed in the criticism, hopefully this will be like a fever that passes soon and the pleasures and aesthetics can be addressed, instead of further fomenting some kind of artificial competition between synthetics and the natural. That said, I do think it is evidence of a win lose mentality at work that feels it is necessary to be essentially negative about something important in order to establish credentials as an authority and critic. Or something like a troubled marriage. Perhaps soon we will all tire of it learn how to "play nice"...

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oops -- deleted my previous post by mistake

    Hi Lucy
    Someone pointed out that the idea that bashing the small, growing natural perfumery field by a rep from the synth side is truly odd. His attack is artificial, since 99% of the public seems unaware of, or doesn't care about, the debate.

    We on the natural side tend to scratch our heads and wonder why all the ado about nothing...they must really be threatened is our most logical conclusion.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.