April 2016 archive

Sci\ART: Is the Bloom Off the Rose? Part Two

As a follow up to my last post, I’d like to discuss the following posts from Amelia Butler:

Winter Is Coming… And Coming
Subjective Timbre – Getting It Backwards
The Blonde Winter

These posts are interesting because they say something that seems to not be popular among analysts who work with the 12 Sci\ART seasons. Amelia’s perspective is especially interesting to me because she was trained and mentored by Kathryn Kalisz herself.

After years of believing that your appearance alone gives no clues at all to your season… I’m starting to come around to the idea that visual harmony matters. It’s interesting that people are very open to seeing Winters of all stripes, but a Light Spring with dark hair and eyes would be much harder to believe.

I think the point that Amelia makes in her Blonde Winter post is important–the colors need to work on you without makeup. In your natural state, you need to need that much saturation as Winter seasons provide, and no one would tell a man that they need a lipstick to look good in the True Winter palette.

In her “Blonde” post, she is mainly talking about True Winter, so I’m curious to know if she thinks a Bright or Dark Winter could be a blonde. Perhaps it’s different when there is a spring or autumn influence affecting the colors, versus the purity of winter alone.

While I think there are still room for surprises in the draping process, I think that perhaps sometimes, it’s because the wrong colors are dulling your natural coloring and making you present differently than it is otherwise. I’m not sure if I believe anymore that you can see something really unusual, like a Light Spring with dark hair and eyes as I mentioned above.

Those of you who have read my blog before probably know I identify with the Dark Autumn season. As a natural blonde, if someone believes what Amelia is saying in these posts, then one might also come to the conclusion that a Dark Autumn coloring would unlikely. But I still find that I harmonize with the fan, when I look at it under my face. Unlike many others who are blonde into adulthood, I don’t find that mascara or filling in my brows makes any bigger of a difference on me than it does on brunettes. I will frequently just put on a DA lipstick, or wear no makeup at all. So there are still surprises, but maybe not just huge leaps…

What do you think of Amelia’s posts? Do you agree, or are you firmly in the “you know absolutely nothing until you’re under the lights and in the drapes” camp?

Sci\ART: Is the Bloom Off the Rose?

When I first discovered this style and color world, getting draped by a Sci\ART or 12 Blueprints analyst was seen a seen as the gold standard for seasonal analysis. There seemed to the perception that you will never been able to see your true beauty until it’s revealed by the drapes, which is still the position taken by said analysts.

Recently, however, I’ve noticed that there’s been some backlash. There are people who have had to be draped numerous times, despite the controlled and standardized process. Some people end up with “compromise” seasons, which usually seems to be Bright Winter for whatever reason. Some people get draped in Sci\ART, and then get custom palettes that are extremely different. I’ve seen who were draped Bright Winter get Soft Autumn-ish palettes from someone like Zyla, and then someone who wears Bright Winter colors beautifully in real life and gets a Bright Winter palette from Beauty Valued is draped Soft Summer.

Then there’s the issue of the lights. Full-spectrum lighting is supposed to replicate northern sunlight and be ideal for color-matching. Yet people have said that they felt like they were under stage lighting while being draped, and it had no relation to how they actually look in the lighting conditions that people live their lives in.

Another issue is that you’re paying to be put into a predetermined set of palettes. Some feel that they don’t fit well within one season at all. This last point came up recently when Christine Scaman’s prices were discussed. Right now, getting draped by her costs 734.50 CAD, or (as of today) 580.95 USD. Zyla’s price for the initial session, in comparison, costs $20 more, and you get a custom palette and style guidelines. Plus he has an Emmy and celebrity clients, and he goes on TV and hosts events–he’s definitely a man whose time in valuable.

Yet as someone who does a lot of freelance work myself, I think I have a little different take on this on most, as the consensus was pretty much outrage. As a freelancer, you charge what you think your time and services are worth, and what the market will support. Christine spends most of her time training new analysts and working on products like the makeup line and the luxury drapes. In fact, on her site, she says she only drapes clients immediately before and after a training course, so she doesn’t have many slots available. So I’d say she is fine with cutting her potential client base down to those who really want to be draped by her in particular and are willing to pay for it. Other analysts who pretty much exclusively drape clients can’t do that, because they need to have a full roster of clients to support themselves. So in and of itself, especially since most analysts seem to be sticking to the standard $350 range, this doesn’t really bother me.

But does that mean that I personally would pay $580.90 to be draped or, let’s be honest, even $350? Sometimes it surprises even me that I have never gone for any kind of analysis when I’ve spent so much time on all of this color and style stuff. Part of it is due to financial and logistical reasons, but the other part is that I’m so stubborn and have such a clear vision of myself that I no longer really want someone to tell me who or what I am. I’ve talked about it some in a prior post, but I have a feeling that the clearer the image of yourself is, and the happier you are with that image, the more likely you are to walk away unsatisfied.

I’m happy with Dark Autumn and the way I use that palette. I get positive feedback on the colors in clothing and on the makeup. My friends even tell me that it’s made them realize why this color nonsense I babble on about matters. I firmly believe that you can DIY your way to a palette that you’re satisfied with.

Will I ever have the “WOW” moment in front of the mirror and under the lights? At this point in time, it’s looking unlikely. I may one day invest in a Beauty Valued palette, but for now, I’m making use of what Kathryn Kalisz began in my own way, in a way that feels right to me.

Defined Style Types

Cory posted a thought-provoking comment on my last post. Here’s the part that provides a nice segue into my post today:

The TIB person has the idea that people can be blends of up to 3 style types. So someone could be “Dramatic/Natural/Gamine”=”Casual Punk”, etc.

What do you think of this? On the one hand, I feel sort of unsure, particularly when I actually look at the sample outfits, that this is a helpful way of thinking about things. But on the other hand, it is a solution to my own “???” about a style conundrum I’m unable to otherwise solve.

Generally, I write about systems that I’ve found useful for myself or things that I’ve purchased in order to review them. I’ve never purchased any of the Truth Is Beauty guides, although I did beta-test her quiz last year and I came out as Dramatic Gamine. So I can’t really speak about exactly how the system works, what comes in the guides, etc.

But looking at the materials the creator of that system has made available free of charge, what it brings to mind for me is what I think makes Kibbe’s system such a special one. In many systems, finding your type is the end point. Once you figure out your type or are analyzed, you have your set of guidelines to follow and an image.

As I wrote about in the workbook, with Kibbe’s system, determining your type is really the beginning of the journey, not the end. No two people in one type are going to dress alike. What people in the same type share are a few specific characteristics. For FG, for example, it’s a “smallish, broadly angular physicality, along with a youthfully bold and brassy essence.” How your honor those characteristics is the way that you reveal your unique star power.



So what I think when I look at the Truth Is Beauty materials is that they are very defined types, rather than jumping-off points for self-expression. If you’re Romantic-Dramatic-Ingenue, you’re going to be a “Demure Vamp,” an “Intimidating Princess,” or a “Girlish Femme Fatale.”

My personal preference, and the one I cover in the workbook, is coming up with my own archetype. I don’t want to fit myself into a predetermined image; I want to create something that is uniquely mine. Flamboyant Gamine is the main framework, but I use it as a toolbox, not as a finished product.

If you look at the Truth Is Beauty guides and you find one that seems to fit you and express who you are, I think the guide could be worth it for you. But even with 63 types, you may not find something that expresses you–I don’t think I do, really. I would rather create my own guide using the tools I have.