Just as in naturalistic oil painting, where there is a subjective rendering of an image using non-living material, fragrances are unique combinations of molecules that are not “naturally occurring.” Some call fragrances “abstract” for this reason,
Just as in naturalistic oil painting, where there is a subjective rendering of an image using non-living material, fragrances are unique combinations of molecules that are not “naturally occurring.” Some call fragrances “abstract” for this reason, but clearly this is nothing like a Jackson Pollock painting (without any representational content) being viewed as a portrait of a person. Even a “photo-realist” painting can be said to be abstract, IMO, because we look at others or objects as they or we move, even slightly, not as they sit perfectly still. What’s interesting is that there is much less disagreement about what constitutes a great oil painting, at least historically, than there is about assessing fragrances, even if we put aside the scents that are meant to be “experimental” or avant-garde. So, for the rest of this post, let’s focus on naturalistic oil paintings and fragrances without deliberately offensive or harsh elements. Of course, one could just say that it’s all a matter of personal preference. Some would much prefer to frame a poster of a Rubens than a Rembrandt and hang it on their walls, for example.
It is undeniable, though, that Rubens was more “linear” (meaning that he thought more in terms of draftsmanship/drawing), whereas Rembrandt was more “painterly. Rubens created a drawing and then colored it, essentially, whereas for Rembrandt the painting was a holistic construction. Moreover, there is research which suggests that Rembrandt had an even deeper understanding of ho