When I finally decided to start making YouTube videos, I wanted to start with what I identified as the most pressing need in this space, and to me, that was making the content of Metamorphosis available to people who don’t have the book. Parts of the book are online, like the quiz, physical profiles, and checklist, but not that parts of the book that explained the purpose of the system. Without it, Kibbe becomes just another body typing system.
So I’m going to be going through book, making videos explaining the content in each missing chapter. If you’ve never had the chance to read the book, I hope these videos help give you a better perspective on what the system is meant to do for your style and your life.
Click here to view the Style Syntax YouTube channel!
Please check it out and let me know what you think! 🙂
Marzena reichAugust 31, 2020 at 8:17 am
Thank you for udertaking this project. I am sure it will be very much appreciated by many people who have come across David Kibbe’s system and wanting to learn more, have been confornted with a lot of inaccurate or plain false ideas. I know you will reach out to a lot of people , as interest in DK is growing. Good luck and I for one will be very interested in every new episode.Reply
stylesyntaxSeptember 1, 2020 at 4:19 pm
KatjaSeptember 1, 2020 at 2:19 pm
I am happy and very excited to finally see the “missing information” on Kibbe’s system up on the internet. I have found the system to be the most helpful in terms of lines for me – once I understood that style and, well, syntax are two different things, that is. I very much hope to fill in some blanks throughout your series – especially since David uses a lot of “loaded words” as you put it so nicely in some article. (That is a lot of fun when English is not your mother tongue :’D)
I am very much looking forward on how this ties in with your new workbook. (Congratulations! I am currently waiting for my next pay check :’D)
A little off topic, but I’d like to ask: I am currently looking into capsule wardrobes for several reasons (tight budget and two preferred styles that are only partly compatible) – have you ever looked into this? If so, do you have any thoughts (or posts I missed) on it?
All the best,Reply
stylesyntaxSeptember 1, 2020 at 4:19 pm
Thank you for your kind words!
When it comes to capsule wardrobes, I tend to agree with David–they don’t make for an exciting wardrobe. He encourages people to shop for individual outfits. This makes a lot of sense to me, as I think we tend to wear the same outfits over and over anyway, so it makes sense to put a lot of thought into the individual outfits we’re going to purchase. The workbook actually goes into this. 🙂
KatjaSeptember 2, 2020 at 1:29 pm
You’re welcome 🙂
This is very interesting! I half want to disagree on the point of a capsule wardrobe not being exciting – I’d agree that the very basic monochromatic capsules one typically sees around are pretty boring, but I would not say the same about one featuring a vast variety of patterns and colors or rather cool/exciting pieces. But we may mean something different by “exciting wardrobe”. Looking back at something I built for a longer stay abroad a few years past, I mainly mean “is pragmatic, as colorful as I like it and I won’t get bored with it in the next 5 months”.
But that aside, I find the idea very interesting, because I only ever bought new things that I could combine with around three other pieces from my existing wardrobe for pragmatic reasons. Very much looking forward to what you write in the workbook.
stylesyntaxSeptember 4, 2020 at 5:22 pm
I think the idea is that you won’t buy more clothes doing things David’s way, but each piece will be bought very intentionally in order to create the ideal outfit for the situation. Whereas with a capsule, you have to think of how many other things that item can be paired with.
KatjaSeptember 5, 2020 at 10:21 am
Thank you! It took me a while to figure out that the reason for a wardrobe I would built based on a capsule and one on David’s system being very similar is (probably) that I have the “jeans-and-tshirt variant of Sporty” either as Core or as Comfort Zone ^^, Now it makes sense, anyway 🙂
KatjaSeptember 6, 2020 at 2:28 am
Addendum to my previous comment: There would be quite a difference in the number of shoes and bags, though.
So, all in all, I think I got the difference ^^, Thanks again 🙂
LizSeptember 21, 2020 at 10:56 am
You write all about how being tall automatically means a long vertical. And you make good points. But then you go on to write about Aurdrey Hepburn as FG which goes pretty strongly against what you had just laid out since she is tall and long. Where is her small yin?Reply
stylesyntaxSeptember 21, 2020 at 12:14 pm
If you watch my video on the introduction to the book (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCLxlC-y3bw), you’ll note that David calls her “petite.” He has said in the FG group that she was 5’5.5″, not the 5’7″ you frequently see online, so within the ~5’5″ range he says now and within the 5’6″-and-under range he says in the book. Even 5’7″, though, would not be tall enough to have an automatic vertical. You have some vertical at 5’7″ automatically, but not necessarily enough for it to be automatically dominant. At 5’7″, you can’t be FG, but you can be DC still.