the Modern Perfume Paradox and the Scent of Attraction

Walter Benjamin, the original aura farmer, used aura with reference to art.

He described the aura of a piece of art as its unique existence in time and space, an interpretation derived from perception. It encompasses the

perception. It encompasses the experiences of contemplation, admiration, reflection, and analysis.

For example, the Mona Lisa, as you stand beneath her in the muz, the silence filled only with the occasional musings of a French man. the sensory embodiment of the encounter and the experience as you contemplate, admire, reflect and

analyze. Dear Lisa, Benjamin would

analyze. Dear Lisa, Benjamin would describe as aura. It is derived from the sense of authenticity, reverence, and immediacy that comes from the object's originality and history. Maximum aura is experienced when these components are

also maximized. And as such, you would

also maximized. And as such, you would experience the Mona Lisa's maximum aura as you stand beneath her in the Lou.

Benjamin's sentiment in his paper on the mechanical reproduction of art where he introduces us to the concept of aura is that reproduction results in aura decay.

A picture of the monise does not elicit the same emotions as the original painting would. You can understand that

painting would. You can understand that this person would be experiencing more aura than this person. So whilst

reproduction can democratize art, what you experience from it is a diminished version of its original aura.

Reproduction similarly democratizes fragrance. In the current landscape of

fragrance. In the current landscape of mass marketing in social media, the perception of scent and the aura of fragrance itself has undergone a process of decay, originality is one of the core components of the colloquialized version

of aura. And whilst accessibility allows

of aura. And whilst accessibility allows many people to experience something, own something. It makes it less exclusive.

something. It makes it less exclusive.

And if you're familiar with the concept of chicomics, you'll understand that the feeling of exclusivity induced by lack of exposure is essential in its definition of chic. In case you're unfamiliar, chicomics is the science of

fashion trends. When something is new,

fashion trends. When something is new, we have little exposure to it and it feels exclusive. But over time, as our

feels exclusive. But over time, as our exposure increases due to such factors as influencer marketing, ads, and ubiquity amongst muggles, chic value depletes. Benjamin would translate this

depletes. Benjamin would translate this as aura decay. And the same mechanisms apply with fragrance. Perfume was once considered a deeply personal expression of taste, an extension of social

anesthetic identity.

>> Golden Rolex, red Ferrari, Jeremy fragrance. If any of you listen to Miss

fragrance. If any of you listen to Miss Tuber Avalon, I'm sure you'll be well acquainted with Pia Bodo. Um, but in any unfortunate case where you're yet to watch Tuba video, I should introduce him now. Bordaux considered the expression

now. Bordaux considered the expression of taste as a function not only of personal preference, but as a social marker of class through displays of refinement. He suggested that taste is a

refinement. He suggested that taste is a form of cultural capital, a resource through which we assert both belonging to the social groups we believe to be refined and distance from those that we believe not to be. So with regard to our

discussion of fragrance, choice of perfume cannot be attributed merely to personal preference but to the assertion of status. As fragrances become

of status. As fragrances become increasingly commodified by trends, the distinction of a once subtle perfume becomes blurred by our overexposure to shared marketable identity. Although

Benjamin and the principal economics share the same theory, aura decays with the proliferation of exposure through algorithmic trends, influencer marketing, celebrity endorsements, and viral Tik Tok moments. The originality

of fragrance has become a symbol of conformity. One perfume is reproduced

conformity. One perfume is reproduced over and over, worn by millions, everyone smelling the same, and its aura is diluted by repetition. That scent no longer suggests uniqueness, refinement,

but symbolizes our participation in a collective performance of taste, where our identity is mediated through marketing rather than individuality. It

is a very recent cultural phenomenon that the highest compliment someone wishes to receive is to be told that they smell good. But when we say this with reference to the smell of someone's perfume, we are acknowledging the signs of status inscribed within it. Because

we would similarly say something smells good when we smell something cooking.

[bell] >> Something smells good.

>> And yet this translates emotionally to something else entirely. If your hinge date turned up smelling of spaghetti, you wouldn't say, "Oh, you smell good."

Similarly, if your pasta smelled like duty-free, you wouldn't be saying it smells good either. The smell of a person is more symbolic. Complimenting

the smell of a dish is essentially you anticipating it'll taste nice. [snorts]

Whereas Bordeaux would argue that a person smelling good is an accumulation of symbolic knowledge he calls cultural capital. The unspoken literacy of taste

capital. The unspoken literacy of taste that allows us to observe the distinction between the unique and layered fragrance of a handsome European man from the commercial best-selling aftershave that reminds you of boys in

school. For example, Axe or Lynx as we

school. For example, Axe or Lynx as we affectionately know it in England is owned by Unilever and sold at a pocket money price point resulting in its popularity as a fragrance for teenage boys. Unfortunately for Lynx, you cannot

boys. Unfortunately for Lynx, you cannot isolate the actual smell of Lynx from the cultural context of the smell. I'm

not sure about my boys over in the US, but over here, Lynx Africa has reached meme status, but I personally believe that this was almost the intention.

[music] Heat. Heat.

Heat. Heat.

[music] [music] [music] [music] >> [music] [music] >> Every perfume campaign tries to sell sex, but Lynx tried to make it funny.

And unfortunately, it's weakened their brand as a fragrance because you end up smelling like a joke. And you may argue that Lynx is not a cologne, so whatever.

It's not really that important. But is

this not worse? That a deodorant is not about hygiene, but about sexual power. I

don't know. To me, that's weird. But I

think to be honest, this is why the marketing is so effective for teenage boys. Why get a deodorant to stop you

boys. Why get a deodorant to stop you from smelling when it can get you girls?

In any case, marketing exploits this grammar of distinction. We are not simply being sold objects. We are being sold belonging. A promise that to own

sold belonging. A promise that to own the right scent is to be recognized as someone who knows, aka I Y K Y K.

Selling a pleasant smell is easy. Yet

only the most talented marketers communicate semiotic fluency, the ability to read and reproduce the codes of taste through branding. This dynamic

explains why we are so willing to believe in an influencer when they tell us the perfume is extraordinary.

>> This scent is derived from an extinct flower in Hawaii. They are the most unique fragrances I have ever experienced. Their endorsement carries

experienced. Their endorsement carries cultural authority. We understand as the

cultural authority. We understand as the content consumer that the creator is in possession of a membership to a class of people whose taste we wish to emulate.

If the brand is smart enough, the influencer chosen to front a campaign will reflect the brand's identity. The

aura of the influencer and the aura of the brand must align in order to present a believable narrative. The influencer

acts as a bordan figure, the taste maker. And this is why choice of

maker. And this is why choice of influencer in fragrance campaigns in particular is so important because an influencer cannot endorse scent through demonstration. As the consumer of the

demonstration. As the consumer of the influencer, we can't smell what we see.

And so, the brand relies on the consumer simply believing the influencer. As

such, we find ourselves not buying a scent, but buying the taste and identity that the influencer represents. This

phenomenon is not isolated to social media marketing or influencer culture. I

remember watching Darren Brown present an audience with a bottle of highly concentrated peppermint extract.

>> The moment you smell it, it will only be faint. Please put your hand up. He

faint. Please put your hand up. He

opened the bottle and asked the audience to raise their hands when they could smell it.

[music] [music] >> That bottle had water in it.

>> Uh, so here's the twist.

>> That is not peppermint oil. That's

actually just water.

>> Revealing how easily sensory experience can become shaped by suggestion and authority. Darren Brown's credibility as

authority. Darren Brown's credibility as the psychological mind readading I don't know magician scientist I don't know I don't know whatever but if you're sitting in the audience you believe him this gives his narrative weight and you

believe him to such an extent that you experience what he is merely suggesting influencer marketing functions in the same fashion the influencer occupies a position of perceived authority the influencer is believed to be credible

for having good taste so when the influencer says this smells good us as the content consumer respond not to the fragrance itself because we can't smell but to the creator's cultural capital.

>> I've seen a video of Molly saying it's like her favorite perfume and she doesn't get keep. It genuinely smells so unreal. This is like Molly May's

unreal. This is like Molly May's favorite perfume. It is just unreal.

favorite perfume. It is just unreal.

Demonstrating that aura is nothing more than collective conviction. Benjamin

posits that aura refers to the unique presence an object possesses. But in

these examples, both Darren and our influencer dismantle this and expose the idea that presence is produced through belief. The audience didn't actually

belief. The audience didn't actually smell the peppermint because there was no peppermint. He has the credible

no peppermint. He has the credible perceived authority to create smell through suggestion. Aura only exists

through suggestion. Aura only exists because we agree it does. I'm sure

you've all heard of it because you're very intelligent over here on the Ash Caligan channel, but in any case, you haven't. For the imposters watching, in

haven't. For the imposters watching, in 1961, Stanley Mgram conducted an experiment where participants were assigned teacher roles in a study that they were told by a scientist in a white lab coach was on learning and memory.

They were told to press a button every time the scientist told them to. The

teacher [music] would ask the learner questions in a word game and administer an electric shock when the answer was incorrect. He was told to increase the

incorrect. He was told to increase the voltage with each wrong answer. And

every time they did, they would hear a scream of agony from behind a wall in which they believed the learner to be.

At every wrong answer the learner gave, the scientists instructed the teacher to press the button. And every time it was pressed, the screams became louder and more agonizing. The majority of

more agonizing. The majority of participants continued to press the button despite showing visible signs of distress and questioning the scientist.

>> I can't stand THE PAIN. I DON'T

>> STAND. I'm not going to kill that man. I

mean, who's going to take the responsibility if anything happens to that gentleman?

>> I'm responsible for anything that happens here. Continue, please.

happens here. Continue, please.

>> All right. Next was slow >> all the way to the end of the experiment where the concluding button press resulted in silence from behind the wall.

>> 375 volts.

>> I think something's happened that I fall in there. I don't get no answer. He

in there. I don't get no answer. He

[clears throat] was hollering a less volage.

>> The Mgrim experiment demonstrated that authority when symbolically legitimized, in this case by a white coat, can override sensory evidence and moral intuition. They press this button until

intuition. They press this button until they thought they killed someone because a scientist told them to. The scientist

telling them to press the button held a perceived authority credible enough to kill someone. With reference to

kill someone. With reference to fragrance, when an influencer tells you a perfume smells good, their perceived authority and credibility as a taste maker leads us to believe them. We can't

smell it, but they can and we trust them. The popularity of the influencer

them. The popularity of the influencer acts as social validation that their opinions are correct and reflect good taste. And it is this collective

taste. And it is this collective agreement demonstrated by a number of followers as an example metric by us as content consumers that sustains the illusion. Therefore, aura, if we define

illusion. Therefore, aura, if we define it as we have, cannot therefore be an intrinsic quality of an object, but of a socially manufactured response to perceived authority. Social media and

perceived authority. Social media and the digital age has created a paradox in the realm of fragrance. We buy perfume without having smelt it. We are no longer buying based on alfactory experience but on semiotic cues. A

consumer proficient in the symbolic literacy of sense will understand that oud implies opulence, musk implies intimacy, white flaws imply femininity.

Brands utilize this understanding to allow the consumer to project their own sensory associations and imagine sensory congrent if you will. Exploiting the

ability to simulate alactory sensation through visual or linguistic cues.

Evidence for this phenomenon can be found in the marketing of Bakarat Rouge.

It rise in popularity did not stem from the tradition of spraying a little piece of paper in a department store with copious amounts of liquid from a bottle but from digital semiotics red glass gold typography and ad briefs that

require influencers to use certain language that evokes wealth, exclusivity and sensuality. So despite Bakrat Rouge

and sensuality. So despite Bakrat Rouge being first released in 2014, its popularity seemed to begin at the launch of Tik Tok, the launch of Tik Tok as we currently know it at least. And ever

since the popularity of both variables is parallel, suggesting that social media has had a great influence in the popularity of Bakarat Rouge.

Furthermore, Backrat Rouge was the most popular perfume in 2022, suggesting that the success of a perfume no longer depends on its scent, but on its ability to perform well within the digital marketplace. And so, if we believe this

marketplace. And so, if we believe this to be true, it must also be true that symbolism and social and cultural value are more important factors in selling perfume than its scent. This case

encapsulates the logic of imagined sensory congruence. Through collective

sensory congruence. Through collective linguistic and visual association, we as consumers construct an internal simulation of how perfume must smell.

The literal sense of smell is supplanted by social meaning. And as such, we might now consider the perfume to be less so a scent, but more a vessel for the performance of taste, status, and belonging. This is not a unique

belonging. This is not a unique phenomenon confined to fragrance. The

mechanisms of imagined sensory congruence are very popular in the use of food in fashion marketing. In this

context, the alignment is no longer between sight and smell, but between sight and taste. Fashion campaigns have recently been saturated with pictures of indulgent desserts, fresh vegetables, and butter.

Um, the choice of produce is carefully selected to evoke a certain emotion. But

the choice is not just based on the taste in the literal sense, but also in the figurative sense, on what the food represents. So, instead of simulating

represents. So, instead of simulating the taste of whatever food is being used by the marketing team, it is, as Benjamin would say, the aura that is simulated. You can see this all over Tik

simulated. You can see this all over Tik Tok and Pinterest that people are matching food with fashion, food with fragrance, food with literary preference. And I think what we are

preference. And I think what we are seeing is a flip in the narrative.

Instead of food simulating the desiraability of a product, we see the product simulating the desiraability of the food. For example, in this image,

the food. For example, in this image, you may align more with the supposed output. And so you reverse the equation.

output. And so you reverse the equation.

Instead of being influenced to buy what is being marketed, what is being marketed influences what you eat. And

then we find ourselves in the age-old sticky situation of making certain foods fashionable. and for the mental and

fashionable. and for the mental and physical health of probably more so the female population but let's just say it's the general population as a whole this is a bad idea because in this case the diet is not being pushed for its

nutritional value but for its aura and when this is a desirable aura a diet consisting of this is not going to end well furthermore just to drive home how much of a bad idea this is not even

going to end badly if this becomes your diet but also if it does not because it's propaganda like this that suggests that you are only cool if you eat this and so if you don't eat this you are not Cool. Oh. Anyway, I think this is a

Cool. Oh. Anyway, I think this is a discussion for another video. So, if you want to have the conversation, do help yourselves in the comment section below.

I shall join you as I see fit. Anyway,

fragrance-like fashion follows trends.

What we now understand to be clean girl aesthetic is just the most current and refined rebrand of what we would consider minimalism to be in the 2010s.

Clean girl aesthetic is a result of minimalism being filtered through cultural eras of self-care and wellness influence of individualism and the rise of hyper femininity marking a neglect of 2010 minimalism's original architectural

and philosophical influences. Clean girl

aesthetic is a branch of minimalism as a result of filtration and refinement through the 2010s. And as such, I would consider it correct to suggest that before there was clean girl aesthetic, there was minimalism. One of the first brands to capitalize on the breakdown

and refinement of minimalism into its aesthetic was Glossier. 2014 saw the colloquial conception of the term no makeup makeup, a beauty branch of the aesthetic component of minimalism.

Glossier was the embodiment of this trend. Founded in 2014 at no makeup

trend. Founded in 2014 at no makeup makeup's peak, in 2017, minimalism reached its own peak. So, it's no surprise that this is when Glossier became popular as it was one of the only brands identifying with the minimal makeup and skincare at the time where

the most popular trend at the time was actually full glam, smokey eye, filledin eyebrows, Alla, Jeffree Star, James Charles. So, in the scheme of things,

Charles. So, in the scheme of things, there was actually little competition.

At the start of Glossia's rise in popularity in 2017, they released their first fragrance, Glossier U, which was popular, but his popularity was limited by the Jeffree Star effect. It wasn't

until the conception of the Clean Girl aesthetic in 2022 that it reached its full potential. By then, Glossier was

full potential. By then, Glossier was already an established brand, and so when the full glam look fell out of favor, it was the natural replacement.

With the rise of the clean girl aesthetic and Glossia's cultural value, their fragrance U garnered correlating attention, suggesting that this fragrance wasn't bought for its scent, but it semiotic value, a tool for

performing alignment with the Clean Girl aesthetic. Rather than smelling nice,

aesthetic. Rather than smelling nice, you simply owned Glossier U. No matter

what it actually smelt like, owning a piece of the Clean Girl aesthetic was more important. Currently, we are

more important. Currently, we are experiencing clean girl fatigue. To fill

the clean girl void, the most popular trend circle 2025 ad a >> AI. Do you use AI? Do you use church?

>> AI. Do you use AI? Do you use church?

>> Is individuality and authenticity. As

you might expect if you're listening carefully, this cultural turn is mirrored in fragrance. So with the same sentiment in mind, in order to adhere to this new aesthetic, if you want to call authenticity an aesthetic, which to be

honest, I think it is, you must smell authentic and individual. But notice how these are not scents. We have completely dismantled the expectation that perfume should smell nice. This is reflected in the rise of popularity of fragrance

houses like Labo and Brio. Labo was

supposedly created as a scent revolution and desire to rebel against the rising tide of conformity.

Where traditionally fragrance has been quite heavily gendered, for example, floral and sweet for women and woody and musky for men, the Labo combined scent profiles to create a unisex fragrance.

The androgyny supposedly allows the wearer to project their own identity onto the scent. The genderless

composition, clear liquid, and antibrand concepts like the illusion of a handstamped label claims that every perfume is handmade to order and poured upon purchase and the lack of celebrity or influencer marketing is all a

marketing technique in itself to create the illusion of individuality.

Projecting the idea that the wearer imparts their own identity, making it more than a mass-produced object. But

you know who had the same idea?

The visually inept of us will not see difference between the two. I know I can't. Both Elabo and Brio make

can't. Both Elabo and Brio make fragrances that traditionally would have been considered unpleasant for being too animalic or smoky because there has been a sociological shift from the desire to smell pleasant to the desire to smell

different. This pursuit of individuality

different. This pursuit of individuality is a paradox. In the age of mass production and consumerism, authenticity has become a commodity. The rhetoric of realness that brands like Halabo and Brio are marketing to us with

androgynous raw handmade anti-trend promises are just another layer of branding. These markers of originality

branding. These markers of originality have become aesthetics in themselves, endlessly replicated and reproduced. And

so it stands to reason that if we assume Benjamin was correct in his theory of aura decay, the sustained repetition of consumer behaviors based on the desire to be unique results only in the illusion of individuality. The desire to

smell unique ultimately collapses into the same logic as the desire to look fashionable. Which is why we now cringe

fashionable. Which is why we now cringe at the idea of doing too much. Because

paradoxically, individuality looks the same. And unfortunately, following the

same. And unfortunately, following the same reasoning, individuality also smells the same. What if we do actually consider buying and wearing perfume or cologne for its scent? This final

section is for the unks watching.

Who actually value the smell of their cologne over its identity. For those of you who understand the meaning of a top and a bottom, who choose their scent based not on research, virality, exclusivity, or popularity within the

niche fragrance community, which in itself is also a paradox, but on smell.

How radical. Maybe you smell like the bottle you bought in a foreign country.

The bottle you haggled a Moroccan man for that you couldn't even read the label of, let alone recognize the brand, but you enjoyed the smell of. No prior

knowledge, no hype, no commodified identity portrayed by marketing, influenced only by smell. and maybe a little bit by the Moroccan sales pitch and the thrill of a haggle, but mostly by smell. In 2014, Subbert and Friends

by smell. In 2014, Subbert and Friends found that there was a positive correlation between the pleasantness of her smell and our perception of beauty.

Participants were placed in a room that either smelled nice or smelt like fish and were literally asked, >> "What would you rate this girl on a scale of 1 to 10?"

>> Those in the nice smelling room rated her as more attractive than those in the room that smelt bad, demonstrating that a pleasant smell makes you sexy by influencing and altering visual perception. Essentially, to smell good

perception. Essentially, to smell good is to look good. Notice in this experiment how the smell that was influencing perception was blind. There

was no identity associated with the smell, just a pleasant smell or an unpleasant smell. When scent is isolated

unpleasant smell. When scent is isolated from its identity as a product and experienced only as the chemical, it is moderation, not excess that attracts.

Heavy use of cologne or aftershave ala links Africa masks the smell of being someone potentially attractive. You want

your cologne to harmonize with your body chemistry, not compete with it. From an

evolutionary point of view, you can essentially smell if someone is going to make good babies. There is not necessarily a certain smell of wellness.

There is however a smell of illness. And

if you are attempting to medicate your halattosis with Dior suage, uh maybe this podcast is a waste of time. But

anyway, there is however a smell of compatibility. And when you drown this

compatibility. And when you drown this with cologne, you stop signaling nice, friendly, superior species, ideal mate, and start signaling danger chemical warfare. There's a threshold, okay? You

warfare. There's a threshold, okay? You

want to be just above the detectable level so that there is still that unconscious response to combatibility.

So really, it's not a smell in the sense that it is a fragrance because you respond below the conscious level to it.

But when you match a fragrance with the right intensity, it has the potential to increase the level of attraction people feel towards you. As well as intensity, you want congruence. A Czech

zoolologist, which I found quite funny, found that wearing your own perfume is more attractive than wearing a randomly assigned perfume. So by that conclusion,

assigned perfume. So by that conclusion, there must be some kind of interaction between yourself and your preferred fragrance because it smells better than an interaction between yourself and a random fragrance. So what does that mean

random fragrance. So what does that mean in practical terms? You don't want to smother yourself in perfume or you will lose yourself part of that interaction that ultimately makes you smell more attractive. As I said earlier, perfume

attractive. As I said earlier, perfume marketing is based on sex because you can't smell the marketing. You know,

gingerbread men smell nice, but fragrance, as I said earlier, is more than just smelling nice. But unlike the smell of a gingerbread man, the smell of sex depends on cultural context. In the

50s, Marilyn Monroe famously said that she wore nothing but Chanel number five to bed.

>> They asked you questions like, "What do you wear to bed?" Uh, do you wear pajama tops, the bottoms of the pajamas, or the

night gown? Or so I Chanel number five?

night gown? Or so I Chanel number five?

Cuz it's it's the truth.

>> And before 1998, Chanel number five contained civet. The reason why post

contained civet. The reason why post 1998 you no longer find this ingredient in perfume is because you obtain it from the anal glands of exotic cats. It's cat

bum juice. Bum juice that when diluted, it actually smells warm, musky, and sweet, reflecting the depictions of sex that existed at the time. But the

semantics of sex changed in the 80s and '9s. The AIDS epidemic reshaped how we

'9s. The AIDS epidemic reshaped how we viewed sex and as it follows, how we marketed perfume. In 1994, Calvin Klein

marketed perfume. In 1994, Calvin Klein released CK1, a sterile frosted glass bottle and transparent liquid. Is it any wonder that instead of perfume smelling alamalic or primal, it now smells of

cyst? Whilst they smell entirely

cyst? Whilst they smell entirely different, they are portrayed very similarly. The sexy one.

similarly. The sexy one.

>> Perfume hasn't always smelt the same, but it has always smelt of sex. So, with

that, take what you will. Link smells

like a 16-year-old boy. Glossia smells

like a social media marketing intern.

CK1 smells like a kitchen. What smells

like you?

And that is everything we have time for today. I really hope you enjoyed that. I

today. I really hope you enjoyed that. I

really hope to see you here very incredibly soon. do come again if anyone

incredibly soon. do come again if anyone is wondering. My favorite scents are

is wondering. My favorite scents are white florals. Do tell me what your

white florals. Do tell me what your favorite scent is. Do tell me if you own Glossia, Bakrat Rouge, Labo or the like.

Um I will be interested.

Oh.

Ah.

That I'm not going.