I too find "strange synthetic perfumes" deathly. I am sure that most of you have witnessed one of my sneezing fits during the school. Most of my sneezes are reactions to a strong odor, usually a synthetic one from lotion or perfume, maybe cologne, but my nose just gets so irritated that I find is hard to focus and do any activities, I become useless and my life force dwindles. The scent of modernism is killing my air ways. What I am trying to get at here is that in Eliot's second section, "A Game of Chess," talks about how these scents block out authentic/natural smells and how modern form of these smells is coming at a price.
-I guess if I want to smell good I will have to suffer a little bit.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I do find in interesting though that, even if these kinds of perfumes are synthetic, they are often trying to mimic a scent of something natural. According to Wikipedia, the traditional fragrances before Chanel No. 5 (the perfume we mentioned in class) came out aimed to resemble "the pure essence of a single garden flower" as well as a scent "sexually provocative" and "heavy with animal musk or jasmine". Often today you see fragrances that aim to achieve these scents as well. Coco Chanel, on the other hand, did not want her perfume to resemble those things, but wanted to create "a scent that would epitomize the flapper and would speak to the liberated spirit of the 1920s". Personally, I enjoy that Chanel owns up to the fact that her perfume is not natural, and to me that makes it seem more authentic. In my opinion Chanel No. 5 has a powerful meaning behind it, so I think I have to disagree with Eliot's negative opinion encompassing all "synthetic perfumes". While I do agree that too much of any perfume can be off-putting, certain perfumes in the right amount can smell quite nice.
Post a Comment