London, 22/04/2014

RAUX Boris

Rau12373799

MA Art & Science

Central Saint Martins

Introducing odour in a work of art:

A prelude to the sharing of hand-in-hand self-narratives so as to re-act the beginnings of a

new socio-construction with the others.

Abstract

This essay aims to illustrate and discuss the conceptual consequences of a practice of

art that engages with odour.

Firstly, we will establish the two main motives for artists to use smell, then we will

analyse and summarise what can be learnt from scientific literature about this specific

medium. The specificities of odour perception that determine the key process of odour

interpretation will be described and discussed - illustrating how smell perception resists

universal norms and conventions and therefore how odours are subjective and experienced-

based. We will then address the importance of secondary inter-subjectivity, (that is, how the

  2  

experience of odours can be verbally shared with others so as to be qualitatively analysed and

experiences matched or contrasted).

Then, appraising the use of smell in the 'art system' (one which involves an artist, an

artwork and an audience), the essay will attempt to analyse how the absence of social

normalisation impacts the representations generated by our olfactory reality. It aims to

demonstrate the importance of attending to and carefully appreciating the modes of olfactory

representations. The high diversity of responses to a single odorant tells us that odours cannot

be autonomous. They need the help of other mediums to be more than imprints on a “white

page” effect, with the audience the mere recipient of a projection. For deeper meaning to

emerge, a 'hand-in-hand' relationship has to be set up: a relationship built on an acceptance of

inter-subjectivity and a degree of confidence in sharing intimacy. For an artist, the process

requires becoming a singular author of fiction. This fiction is a mix of personal

interpretations, experiences and beliefs. An artist shows and shares his “own olfactory reality”

with others, and in so doing he creates a space where the others also expressed their olfactory

reality. As we will see, this olfactory reality cannot be considered out of complex interaction

with our fantasy and our ideology.

Working with odours does not only imply producing an artwork but also providing

mediation. It is all about creating a site-specific atmosphere that favours the production of

events while we re-enact the beginnings of a new socio-construction with others, one by one.

The impulses of these social events are the sharing of our self-narratives without any

reservation.

  3  

Odours or Odorants?

Before writing about odours, we must define what an 'odour' is and distinguish it from

an 'odorant'. Robyn Hudson (author of The Individuality of Odor Perception) offers the

following definitions:

Odorants are the molecules, entities of the external world objectively definable

in terms of physicochemical characteristics and capable of being interpreted

by particular nervous systems to yield perceptions we call odours.’

‘Odours are the subjective products of individual nervous systems and thus

potentially are open to the many modulating influences of what might broadly

be thought of as the mind. (Hudson, 2002, p. 408)

Hudson’s scientific definition shows us how important it is to conceive odour as part

of a system that includes both an external olfactory reality (the odorant) and the neurological

machinations of the human being (that lead to the perception of odour). We could therefore

formulate that the act of smelling is composed of three main phases: first, a presentation of an

(olfactory) event, secondly, the perception of this event and finally the interpretation of this

event.

  4  

Artist's motives to use smell

Pioneering art historian and critic (with a stated interest in smell in art) Jim Drobnick

describes two fundamental motives of artists who use smell:

The first is the belief that scent provides an inescapably raw, unmediated, pure

sensation. Instead of representing an object or experience, odour directly

accesses the real.

The second contradicts the first and to whatever degree the sense of smell

seems to be raw or immediate, it is nevertheless redolent with personal

connotations and cultural significance. Artists are drawn to the use of odours

because they are inextricably linked to individual identity, lived experience and

cultural sensibility. (Drobnick, 1998, p. 11-12)

The   first  motive  might   be   considered   a  more   naturalistic   and   formalistic   intention;   a  

drive   to   emphasize   and   exploit   smell   as   a   structural   element   with   its   own   aesthetic  

value.  For instance, we could see this tendency in the works of Wolfgang Laib, Giuseppe

Penone, Ernesto Neto or Francis Kurkdjian.

  5  

Laib, W. (2005) Without Beginning and Without End. ���Beeswax, wooden understructure. New York : Sperone Westwater Gallery.

Penone, G. (1999) Respirare l'ombra. Metallic cages, bay leaves, bronze covered with gold. Paris : Centre Georges Pompidou.

  6  

Neto, E. (2002) We stopped just here at the time. Lycra, Clove, tumeric, pepper. Paris : Centre Georges Pompidou.

Kurkdjian, F. (2010) Noctambulles. Scented bubbles. Paris : Grand Palais.

  7  

The second might be considered more constructivist and conceptual in nature; the motivation

to use smell as a means to tap into personal experience and conditioning.

For instance, we could see this tendency in the works of Marcel Duchamp, Piero Manzoni

James Auger and Jimmy Loizeau or Sissel Tolass.

Duchamp, M. (1919 – 1964) Air de Paris, (50cc de Paris). Glass, wood and air. Paris : Centre Georges Pompidou.

Manzoni, P. (1961) Merda d'artista n°31. Steel, paper and unknown. Paris : Centre Georges Pompidou.

  8  

Auger, J and Loizeau, J. (2006) Smell +. Various materials. New-York : MOMA

Tolass, S. (2010) Guy N°5 (Smell of Fear) Glass and smell. Berlin : courtesy of the artist.

As  Jim  Drobnick  (Drobnick,  1998,  p11)  himself  admits,  this  way  of  classifying  different  

practices   in   only   two   categories   might   be   considered   an   oversimplification   but   they  

however  reflect  the  polarisation  of  the  “olfactory  artists”  practices.    

The analysis of current scientific knowledge explored in the following paragraphs tends to

disqualify the first approach because of the way that we inevitably learn to perceive odours

  9  

through experience. This approach is predicated on the possibility of presenting smells that

are perceived as new (raw), not culturally connoted (unmediated) and not artificially produced

(pure). However, this approach is contentious, because as soon as we learn a new odour, it is

intrinsically associated with (and enmeshed within) its physical, emotional and cognitive

context. The terms “raw”, “pure” and “unmediated” might be considered misguided because

the perceptual apparatus of the nervous system instantly generates mediation. Smell therefore

should only be thought of a perception, not a sensation. It cannot be unmediated. And

furthermore it is mediated by each of us differently. Smell, science suggests, cannot be

characterized outside of individual human experience.

The principle difference then between these two approaches hangs on the role of the

processes of learning and conditioning.

The first approach tends to value the presentation of a brand new sensation (an

odorant never before experienced). It can be characterised as an attempt to work at very initial

margins of the perceptual process - a fleeting pre-perceptual state, (if it exists). The artist tries

to create a new experience to trigger the learning of a new reality. Here, the artist is

attempting to provide an expansion of the perception of reality and so is concerned only with

the odorant.

The second approach tends to work on representations of an “already symbolised”

reality (the perception of odour). In contrast to the first approach, it might be characterised as

an attempt to work in partnership with the perceptual process. The artist here attempts to

create an experience for revised learning of an existing reality. He is trying to expand the

fictional interpretations of reality and so is concerned not with the odorant but with the odour.

  10  

Despite the theoretical difference in artistic motive, the two approaches are

interconnected. Odours cannot exist without the presence of an odorant, and an odorant

cannot be perceived without inducing an odour. As the anthropologist Alfred Gell (Gell,

1977, p. 26) said, [smell is] somewhere in between the stimulus and the sign. We could argue

that the two main motives defined here could be seen as the twin territories of the practice of

art using smell. The artist cannot truly locate himself in one or the other exclusively.

Discussion might more usefully address the question of whether any specific artwork

can be interpreted as a presentation or a representation. Does the artwork generate new

learning or a re-learning? After analysing the science of smell, we will come back to this

question.

Why smell lacks perceptual inter-subjectivity

As discussed, there are large inter-individual differences in the interpretation of

olfactory stimuli (much like there are for any of the other senses). Uniquely for the sense of

smell however, these differences stem not only from the meaning of smell but also from the

sensory basis of the perception of smell (Köster, 2002, p. 30). Olfactory scientists suggest that

this demonstrates what they refer to as 'an absence of standard observer'.

Inter-individual differences in olfaction may in theory be related to the fact that we

tend not use odour information in orientation and movement. It is frequently necessary for us

to locate something in a three-dimensional world and share this location with other humans,

  11  

so it is functionally useful for humans to perceive the outside world in the same way

physiologically. Thus visual and auditory 'rules' exist that dictate how humans navigate their

environment. Since smell is not used to this end, such rules lack purpose. The olfactory

perceptual system is thought serve two function only: to detect odorants and to discriminate

between odorants. This is, it tells us that a molecule is present before us, and tell us also that it

is one molecule and not another. It is1 only when smell is coupled with other senses like

vision and hearing (which give to us distance, direction size, etc.) that we are able to locate an

olfactory source.

Egon Peter Köster, a experimental psychologist, supplies a good example of

understand inter-subjectivity in visual perception: a violin will look the same (form, size) to us

and to a man who has never seen one before, but he may not interpret it as a musical

instrument (Köster, 2002, p. 30).

In the absence of inter-subjectivity (both in terms of shared conventions of visual

perception and shared (learned) interpretation of visual objects) the violin, firstly, might not

look the same to different people (in visual form) and secondly, someone who has never seen

a violin might not recognise it as a musical instrument. Nevertheless we learn to attach the

concept of “violin” to this visual object and if we share a cultural background, we are likely to

be able to interpret it as a musical instrument.

 

Differences in perception of the world can be difficult for an individual to

accommodate and fully understand. We appreciate that a many of our interpretations are

                                                                                                               1 Nevertheless, we might be able to have spatial orientation information with the sense of smell because of the fact that we have two separated olfactory bulbs. Didier Trotier, a neurophysiologist specialized in olfaction, said to me that it is not something that we could confirm or infirm, at the current state of knowledge.

  12  

socially and environmentally constructed2 but our tendency towards egocentrism means that

the fact that we don’t “sense” the world that we share in the same way is more challenging to

accept.

This dependence on inter-subjectivity (and reluctance to assimilate the notion that

some experiences lack inter-subjectivity) can theoretically be explained from an evolutionary

perspective. A perceptual system that could anticipate the vagaries of chemical form and

discriminate effectively would likely require vast reserves of neurological processing (if we

take into account that the seemingly unlimited and unpredictable nature of the chemical

world). On the other hand, a modular, constructive system of perception (one that necessitates

a degree of “training”) would offers functional biological advantage sufficient to promote

survival of our species to our environment (Hudson & Distel, 2002, p. 409-410). An odour

perception system based on learning and conditioning would in this case be more economical

and thus preferred by evolutionary selection.

As with our other chemical sense, taste, our olfactory environment is based on a

multiplicity of singular event that rely on the presence of specific molecules. There are no

continuums (such as light-wave or acoustic frequencies, temperature, etc.) Different

molecules are not related by way of mere gradation. Compared to visual, tactile or sound

environments, there is no way to transform smells by modulating only one parameter (e.g.

adjusting a light-wave to change yellow light to red light). Molecule (M1) cannot readily

become another molecule (M2) by simple manipulation. There is an ontological gap between

M1 and M2.

                                                                                                               2 On this topic, we could refer to the concept of habitus developed by Pierre Bourdieu.

  13  

The olfactory perception system is able to detect the presence of a molecule or the

absence of a molecule. In addition, olfaction combines a reliable absolute sensitivity with

acute discrimination (Köster, 2002, p. 28). It might be thought therefore that the neural

olfactory 'image' of M1 has no relation to the neural olfactory 'image' of M2. At present, this

hypothesis is untested.

With vision, it can be demonstrated that colours interact with other colours and forms

interact with other forms (Albers, 2006)3. For example, the presence of the colour blue

influences the perception of yellow in the local visual field; the perception of size a square

will be influenced by a much larger square placed adjacent to it. Given that the perception of

odours relies on the detection and discrimination of discrete physical entities rather than

modulated physical entities, those working with smell might ask whether these types of

perceptual distortion could possibly be observed in olfactory environments.

The absence of perceptual inter-subjectivity with smell has significant implications for

those set out to create specific odour experiences using odorants. There are further

implications for those who wish to share representations of odours, because it cannot be

assumed that odours possess the same meaning between individuals. These issues are difficult

to articulate and even more difficult to study objectively4.

An important practical question for artists working with smell is: when and how do we

learn to attach a meaning to an odour?

                                                                                                               3 For example, the presence of the colour blue influences the perception of yellow in the local visual field; the perception of size a square will be influenced by a much larger square placed adjacent to it. 4 The lack of a 'standard observer' is perhaps the reasons why scientific knowledge of smell perception is limited since it requires objective research of an extremely large number of subjects to be able of generate sufficient statistical data for analysis.

  14  

Singular experienced-based olfactory frames of references

Olfactory memory seems to be more episodic than semantic in everyday life. We can

often remember in some detail the context of an olfactory memory but in most cases we

cannot adequately name the odour (Köster, 2002, p. 33). The ability to distinguish odorants

and identify odours precisely is a skill mastered by relatively few (perfumers, cooks, florists,

etc).

Olfaction is very much an experience-based sense. Most of us learn through

experience to attach meanings to odours on hedonic and holistic bases. An individual’s

personal history tends to shape his or her response to an odour for life (Herz, 2002, p. 161).

Moreover, these histories are highly emotional.

It is broadly thought that there are no congenital or innate preferences in olfaction.

Some natural tendencies to universal response to smells (with a positive hedonic value in this

case) have been shown at birth for babies but the preference effect seems to totally disappear

after one year (Schaal, 2012). Moreover, the evidence of innate preferences exists but comes

only from studies in very controlled environments. We face a lack of science study in this

field. Even no evidence has been clearly demonstrated to universal response to smell as for

instance, to rotting smells. The lack of innate preferences might be thought to be an advantage

to human's capacity to live in disparate environments with in very different chemical contexts

(Köster, 2002, p. 32).

  15  

In everyday life, the association of personal hedonic values with odour is learnt

through various mechanisms that involve memory and conditioning. When we smell an odour

in a positive (rewarding) environment or in association with a positive event, over time we

start to feel positively about the odour itself independently of the positive context. This type

of Pavlovian association conditioning is thought to explain much odour learning. If an odour,

firstly perceived as neutral, is paired with any liked or disliked event, one’s perception can

change by valence (Hermans & Baeyens, 2002, p. 120). This way of constructing olfactory

experience through conditioning is not consciously manipulated. It is incidental and indeed in

every day life the process is often unconscious (Issanchou, 2002, p. 211). This means that we

are learning about smells most of the time, without expectation, without intending to and not

within a controlled, calibrated and normative environment.

It has been demonstrated that odour perception can be influenced by emotive

suggestion (Dalton, 1999, p. 579-590). For instance, in the field of aromatherapy, odours are

frequently described (and experienced) as 'relaxing' or 'stimulating' when no empirical

evidence of intrinsic relaxing or stimulating qualities exists. This illustrates that - as with any

sensory system - the results of olfaction can go beyond any predictable physical reaction and

are likely to be highly influenced by its context or our beliefs. The effects of these beliefs can

be so extreme that the mere suggestion of an odour, without it actually being present, can

cause people to report physical distress (Herz, 2002, p. 167).

The influence of social conditioning on the hedonic valence of an odour, especially

between those within a well-defined socio-cultural or geographical region, is difficult to

quantify. Herz Rachel argues that despite the existence of cultural norms, it is usually difficult

to predict an individual’s reaction to a specific odour because of the many idiosyncratic odour

  16  

associations that are personal to the individual (Herz, 2002, p. 162). It might seem like the

granularity of the olfactory world resides at the level of the individual.

Even in Western countries, still influenced by a hygienist philosophy, the smells

present in our environment have not been reduced to a controllable or even countable number.

The potential for novel smell encounters is so huge that no symbolic or categorical standard

could possibly be adequate. Compiling a dictionary of odours might theoretically be a first

step to control the level of individuality in olfaction. However, since the beginning of

perfumery and the food industry, there have been attempts to define and build a standard

symbolic space for odours, but all have failed to find a robust, useful general structure

(Chastrette, 2002, p. 112). Even where proposed industry-specific classifications are effective

enough for work with specific smell mediums, the different description systems are extremely

tailored to the needs and values of the persons in charge of the creation of these classifications

(Chastrette, 2002, p. 113).

An olfactory vocabulary does exist (as the linguist Sophie David points out), however,

all descriptions therein tend to be based on resemblances to the characteristics of the source

objects. Smells thus have no autonomy vis-à-vis their sources (David, 2002, p. 95). That

means that our olfactory vocabulary is created on a basis that is not really its own. It is a kind

of symbolic meaning by “ricochet”. That might be why it is often difficult to find the “right”

word (or even any word) to describe an odour precisely.

This propensity for humans to be easily conditioned to respond to smells in certain

ways is perhaps one reason artists find odour intriguing. The relationship between smell and

emotion (and how these may be manipulated) is little charted artistic territory. Indeed, this

  17  

territory is not controlled by a higher authority but, just by the one we face (or the one who

faces the artwork).

How to play 'hand-in-hand'

In order to explore the possibilities for using odour in art we must ask ourselves, how

can we share our odours (and not merely our odorants)?

To do so, we need to establish a local convention, to prime an environment in which

odour is perceived and verbally articulated; one in which agreements and disagreements,

shared olfactory experiences and antagonistic olfactory experiences are discussed and

cogitated.

Lionel Naccache argues that 'objective' perceptions (perceptions that are measured or

judged by universal standards or metrics) tend to constrain our interpretations and favour

consensus over diversity (Naccache, 2009, p. 398).5 Here, the 'raw' perception of elements in

the outside world is held to be the ultimate frame of reference; a commonly agreed standard

that eschews subjectivity (the suppression of subjectivity and personal bias being the hallmark

of empirical science).

However, in the case of the senses of chemical reception (olfaction and taste

principally) empirical science faces a wall due to the intrinsic lack of inter-subjectivity

between humans, that prohibits the generation of objective standards. While shared                                                                                                                5 ‘Les données objectives du monde réel telles qu’elles s’impriment de manière largement identique à travers cents cerveaux normaux (…), contraindront fortement les interprétations de la perception, et une interprétation perceptive consensuelle émergera.’ Naccache, L.

  18  

experiences of reality can produce something of a consensus, it is only though our personal

'stories' (which mix both interpretations and beliefs) that we might establish meaningful

understanding of the experience of odour. Mutual gain comes through the sharing of our own

experiences rather than through the application of scientific paradigms. Science, it seems,

might help us explain singular mechanisms to do with odour, but not the meaning of odour.

Science presently can deal with odorants but not odours.

So by what means can we fruitfully study odours? If we reject the possibility of

common convention and universal laws of odour and instead acknowledge the infinite

complexity of 'the self', then perhaps we might look to the creation of a collective database or

human map of odour experiences. This is a daunting task, fraught with uncertain parameters

and unreachable boundaries. On the other hand, it may be an invigorating perpetual

adventure. Odours give us free rein to chart perceptual experiences outside of the expected or

predictable. This unexpected land got a name: the other.

To study or to use odours, we are obliged then to reconsider our approach to gathering

knowledge. A distanced and disembodied observational position doesn’t work and so to know

more about odours demands a qualitative or participative response. It is necessary to

experience odour and to then somehow articulate that experience. Compared to senses

amenable to objective study (such as vision), participants' reports about odours do not focus

on fixed or primary perceptual aspects, but on far more blurred and changeable secondary

perceptual outcomes. The “subject of study” is individually relative to the observer both in

term of form and time. (It somewhat resembles the problem of quantum physics in which the

presence of observer (or just the act of observation) distorts the subject of study). We cannot

know for sure if we are recording the “the subject of study” or the deformation that occurs

  19  

due to the articulation of the observer. We might argue that these deformations are in fact

essential and even more interesting. Nevertheless, the task is still difficult because the starting

points (the self) and the end points (the odours perceived) are ontologically out of reach of

outside agents. While we may try to establish 'meeting spaces' where people attempt to

describe their odour experiences, the shared, temporary focal point of self-report may reveal

only our individual propensity to distort because of our “biographies” and our inner fictions.

In addition, the veracity of an individual's odours experience cannot - when shared

with another person - be divorced from the social effects interpersonal communication.

Paradoxically, even though olfaction is an experienced-based sense and mostly learnt alone,

the quality of our own olfactory experiences is to some degree determined by experiences of

others. The 'coordinate system' by which we describe odour is based upon the language shared

between ourselves and those we discuss our odour experience with.

Typically a 'common' odour will eventually be negotiated. Nevertheless, this

“common” odour is always determined locally and relies on unique individual experiences.

While odours are hyper-individual, they are also shaped by sociability. Odours place us

somewhere between global myths and personal anecdotes, but they seem to be inextricably

linked to faith. This faith relies on the degree of confidence we show in ourselves or to the

other. In a blurred environment, nothing is crystal clear so we are tended to find something to

trust.

Talking about odours forces us to express intimacy and therefore perhaps they

represent an excellent opportunity to build a social system that encourages sincerity and

honesty. Using odours in artworks might represent a formal but constructive drive towards a

more social approach to art.

  20  

The need for mediation

Artists, by presenting their 'fictions' to the world, are simply people laying the first

stone of dialogue. They do so by breaking through barriers of convention by showing us their

personal, intimate fictions. The question of whether or not these fictions reflect the fictions of

others is of course debated. By choosing to use a medium such odour, the artist relinquishes

control of all post-production perception and interpretation of his work. The frames of

reference between each of us can be so different that collective representations are hard to

reach. That means that the public is facing a presentation but not a representation. This

implies that symbolism is largely prohibited. Appropriating or hijacking meaning is

impossible if there isn't “a” meaning (such as 'a' history) but instead a galaxy of individual

meanings that shows up. For instance, what would be an olfactory version of “ceci n’est pas

une pipe” by Magritte be constructed? Each receiver of the artwork might associate the smell

of a pipe with something different (e.g. a sofa, a farmer, a grand-mother, etc.) There is no

socially fixed association.

One could argue that we are still free to use odorants since a shared interpretation is

easily constructed, however, as discussed, the link between the odorant and the odour is learnt

individually, so focussing on the odorant is not very helpful. This is because the observer is

likely to feel that he faces a “white page” on which he can project only what he already

knows. In this case, he learns nothing new.

  21  

This is why the artist using smell must define the context of appreciation using other

mediums in order to find out if his audience understands and accepts his ‘olfactory’story. It

could be seen as a paradox but without some means of mediation, odours can never be shared.

They are locked within the self. The artist has to create by “ricochet”, by providing something

physical and tangible to lead the observer to the odour. These additional elements (unlike

smells) will possess socially constructed conventions and interpretations. Here we employ

these conventions and interpretations to prime the observer to the message we intend to

express with smell. This narrowing of the olfactory imagination might be the price to pay to

engage a debate through the presentation of smell. Odours have to be contextualised so as to

go further than the mere novelty of having something to smell in a gallery or a museum. The

real aesthetical challenge is to limit as much as possible the use of others medium so as to

keep a maximum of space to smells. It is like trying to say as less as we can so as to be not

distorted the story but enough to bring the public in. The smell artist must pay careful

attention to how olfactory artwork is shown. Smell, it seems, must be presented hand-to-hand

with both other classical art mediums. In this case, the mediation of the art is part of the art.

Words, visible objects, sounds, etc. never quite match odours. Their natures are

different so there is always tension. These tensions might discourage the viewer from

appreciating the olfactory fiction of the author or even lead him to refuse to acknowledge the

mediation. Our strong reaction to odour can override the conventional systems of

representation that have been institutionalised in other mediums. This antagonism might help

us - or the observer - to recognise the influence of conventions on the perception of an object.

For instance, when I was showing one of my artwork: Latente on Mercers Road (which was

made with my wife and I’s used bed linen).

  22  

Raux, B. (2013) Latent(e) on Mercers Road. ���Pillows, flat sheet, duvet cover, duvet of the day. London : courtesy of the artist.

One girl and one guy went closed by and I was there. The girl entered the “tent” and

immediately shouted “Gosh, it stinks! I hate this odour! It is such a masculine smell”.

Surprised, the guy put his head in and said that he smelt nothing. As embarrassed by her over-

reaction, the girl started justifying herself and looking for a plausible causal explanation.

After less than one minute, she admitted to me that she was lesbian and might have had a kind

of repulsive reaction to men in such an intimate situation. Of course, it was not a “dirty man’s

bed” but a couple’s one. Moreover, just before, two girls spent more than an hour in the tent

(with only their high heels going out from the tent). Consequently, it seems that the “lesbian”

girl over-reacted to her fantasy rather than to the reality of her perception. The consequence of

this over-reaction was a projection of her intimacy which was, for a moment, not shielded

from outsiders..

Even though we were perfect strangers, odours created between us (forced upon us) an

ephemeral intimate relation. I let her perceive traces of my physical intimacy and she showed

me the reality of her fantasy.

  23  

Odours might thus help us test the level of 'hyperreality' of our own frames of

reference and they might help us realise how much of our individual experience differs or not

from others. It might be a good test to realize if we are or not in harmony with a ‘social

reality’.

Conclusion

Using odour favours not only the creation of new forms but the perception of new

forms. This is by no means revolutionary to art because creating new forms, or at least

singular ones, might (should) be the goal of any professional artist engaged in a contemporary

approach.

The olfactory part of the piece of art will be most of the time (nearly always)

considered as a new event. This ontological novelty is a dynamic and never-ending process of

learning for the public.

Nevertheless we should be careful about the ideology underlying the never-ending

process of novelty induced by using smells. This phenomenon forces us to re-read/ re-enact

the work of art even if this artwork seems common or already known at first sight.

To me, novelty cannot be considered a quality criterion sufficient to justify the

existence of a work of art: the quality of the form induced is also fundamental. Here we face a

paradox because any “really” new form does not yet have quality criteria of appreciation. This

means that in my point of view, any artwork must involve a mix of classicism and novelty to

be subtly appreciated. This also means that an artwork only based of smell might be not

enough and might have to be enriched with other mediums. Introducing other mediums means

  24  

mediating the olfactory dimension. This induces developing a synesthesic and more complex

approach. It also means that the olfactory event has to be supported by post (or parallel)

events. To sum up, activating the sense of smell in art raises the question of the mediation at

the heart of the creation.

By contextualising his olfactory art, the artist risks losing the artistic rewards of the

absence of inter-subjectivity, but can benefit from using this contextual contrast to expose and

confront the false objectivities of other mediums or the pure fantasies of odours. We might

ask then if the aim of his art is really to construct or to deconstruct the link between internal

meaning and external reality.

The artist using smell is obliged always to analyse the system of production of both

meaning and reality, not simply one or the other. Because of the high level of experience-

based interpretation involved in the perception of odour, we usually face an intense

ontological gap between the experiences of different individuals. Odour-based artworks

always place us in a state of Relational Antagonism. It intrinsically pushes us toward

boundless encounters with the frames of reference of others. It forces us to confront the

disparities in how we all see the world. Odours might be considered on one hand a high

source of conflict, and on the other hand, a way of truly accepting differences.

Beyond this continuous act of learning from the confrontation to the other, we could

see an extension of the symbolic field that also induce an expansion of our surrounding

reality. Moreover, as Slajoj Zizek, following the teaching of Lacan, shows us in “the pervert

guide to Ideology”, we are trapped into a circular phenomenon involving dynamic

interactions between reality-symbolic-ideology. So, in the end, we could consider “olfactory

  25  

art” as an invisible hand that transfigures our construction of ideologies and which is

consequently highly political.

Odours are a formidable and challenging tool for art. They can be used to create art

free from authoritarian conventions of judgement, which allows us to learn from other people

'in the here and now': It is a wonderful prelude to the sharing of hand-in-hand self-narratives.

  26  

Sample Bibliography

Bishop, C. (2004) Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics. October, vol 110.

Bourriaud, N. (1998) Relational Aesthetics (English Language Version). Paris: Les presses du Réel.

Casper Borretzen (2004) Slavoj Zizek The Reality of the Virtual, a documentary from Wright, B.

[Internet]. Available from <  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnTQhIRcrno> [Accessed 7 january

2014].

Chastrette, M. (2002) Classification of odors and Structure-Odors Relationship. In: Rouby, C., Schaal,

B., Dubois, D., Gervais, R. & Holley, A. Olfaction, taste and cognition. New York: Cambridge

University press.

Dalton, P. (1999) Cognitive Influences on Health Symptoms from Accurate Chemical Exposure.

Health Psychology, vol 18.

David, S. (2002) Linguistic Expressions for Odors in French. In: Rouby, C., Schaal, B., Dubois, D.,

Gervais, R. & Holley, A. Olfaction, taste and cognition. New York: Cambridge University press.

Drobnick, J. (1998) Reveries, Assaults and Evaporating Presences: Olfactory Dimensions in

contemporary Art. Parachute, vol. 89.

Gell, A. (1977) « Magic, Perfume, Dream… » In Lewis, I. Symbols and Sentiments: Cross-cultural

studies in Symbolism. London: Academic Press.

  27  

Issanchou, S. & colleagues, (2002) Testing Odor Memory: Incidental versus Intentional Learning,

Implict versus Explicit Memory.     In: Rouby, C., Schaal, B., Dubois, D., Gervais, R. & Holley, A.

Olfaction, taste and cognition. New York: Cambridge University press.

Hermans, D. and Baeyens, F. (2002) Acquisition and Activation of Odor Valence, In: Rouby, C.,

Schaal, B., Dubois, D., Gervais, R. & Holley, A. Olfaction, taste and cognition. New York:

Cambridge University press.

Herz, R. (2002) Influences of Odor on Mood and Affective Cognition. In: Rouby, C., Schaal, B.,

Dubois, D, Gervais, R. & Holley, A. Olfaction, taste and cognition. New York: Cambridge University

press.

Hirschhorn, T. (2002) interview with Okwui Enwezor. In : Thomas Hirschhorn: Jumbo Spoons and

Big Cake. Chicago: Art Institute of Chicago.

Holley, A. (2002) Cognitive Aspects of Olfaction in Perfume Practice. In: Rouby, C., Schaal, B.,

Dubois, D., Gervais, R. & Holley, A. Olfaction, taste and cognition. New York: Cambridge University

press.

Hudson, R. & Distel, H. (2002) The Individuality of Odor perception. In: Rouby, C., Schaal, B.,

Dubois, D., Gervais, R. & Holley, A. Olfaction, taste and cognition. New York: Cambridge University

press.

Köster, E P. (2002) The Specific Characteristics of the Sense of Smell. In: Rouby, C., Schaal, B.,

Dubois, D., Gervais, R. & Holley, A. Olfaction, taste and cognition. New York: Cambridge University

press.

  28  

Laclau, E. & Mouffe, C. (1985) Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic

Politics.

Naccache, L. (2009) Le Nouvel Inconscient-Freud le Christophe Colomb des neurosciences. Paris :

Odile Jacob.

Nietzsche, F. (1992), Ecce homo – Nietzsche contre Wagner. Translated from the German by Eric

Blondel. Paris : Flammarion.

Schaal, B. (2012). La cognition olfactive du nouveau-né et du nourrisson. (2012) [Podcast video

programme], Paris : Collège de France. January 2012. Available from: <http://www.college-de-

france.fr/site/stanislas-dehaene/seminar-2012-01-24-11h00.htm> [Accessed 8 January 2014].

Zizek, S. (2009) The Parallax View. London: MIT press.

The pervert guide of Ideology. (2013) Directed by Sophie Fiennes. U.K.: Channel 4 DVD [Video:

DVD].