What more do we need to fully appreciate perfumes, beyond considering them objects for aesthetic appreciation? My contention is that our appreciation of some perfumes would be largely incomplete, unless we acknowledged them as works of art. I defend the claim that some perfumes are works of art from the point of view of different definitions. Nick Zangwill's aesthetic definition makes it easy to defend the proposed claim, but is not very informative for the purposes of fully appreciating some perfumes. On the other hand, Jerrold Levinson's intentional-historical definition and Dominic Lopes's approach to defining art make it more challenging to defend the proposed claim. I show that, even so, the challenge may be met. Moreover, the challenge is well worth engaging with, since tackling it uncovers features of some perfumes that are essential to their full appreciation.

中文翻译：

---

一些香水是艺术品吗？

除了将它们视为审美对象之外，我们还需要什么才能充分欣赏香水？我的论点是，除非我们承认它们是艺术品，否则我们对某些香水的欣赏在很大程度上是不完整的。我从不同定义的角度为某些香水是艺术品的说法辩护。Nick Zangwill 的美学定义很容易为所提出的主张辩护，但对于充分欣赏某些香水的目的而言，它的信息量并不大。另一方面，杰罗德·莱文森（Jerrold Levinson）的有意历史定义和多米尼克·洛佩斯（Dominic Lopes）定义艺术的方法使得为提议的主张辩护变得更具挑战性。我表明，即便如此，挑战可能会得到应对。此外，挑战非常值得参与，