Style Syntax

One of the main things about Kibbe that causes confusion is the idea of essence. He says that “inside” and “outside” can be different, but yet he also goes into the personality of the various Image Identities at length. This can be confusing if, say, you are physically a Gamine, but have a more reserved Classic personality.

I think you have to go back to Kibbe’s inspiration, which is Old Hollywood image making. It didn’t matter what your personality was; they would concoct an image for you based on your physical features alone. Romantic Marilyn Monroe was given a “sex kitten” image, and that was all she was allowed to portray. I think Kibbe does much the same thing, really. He gives you a “metamorphosis” based on what he sees, and nothing else.

(Source)

Another way to look at it is to think of animation. When designing a character, animators look for how to express who the character is using line. You wouldn’t give a princess-type character non-princessy features unless you were trying to make some sort of statement. Sharp features go to sharp characters.

(Source)

Real people, of course, are far more complex. Kibbe is a surface system. It doesn’t work with your personality or lifestyle to try to create something that works with who you are. It simply is meant to create some kind of ideal image of you. It doesn’t work if you look at it as, “But that is not who I am.” He talks a little bit about it in the book, when he goes into how he would dress Shirley MacLaine in her very yin New Age phase. But how to do that for yourself is something that Kibbe doesn’t really go into detail about. Figuring out how to reconcile the two is your job.

I think part of the confusion also stems from the fact that Kitchener uses essence in a different way, and everything is custom. Kibbe is not, and is not going to go deep into you as an individual. Look at your lines and your geometry, and reflect them in your clothes. How to reflect everything else while staying in your Kibbe type is something you have to figure out on your own.

For me, I find that Flamboyant Gamine fits me better, personality-wise, than any of the other types, and I’ve never had a problem with how to express myself within my Kibbe type. But I’m sure that plenty of you have struggled with this, and I’d love to hear how you managed to resolve this issue, or where you are in the process.

I thought it might be worthwhile to talk a bit about how I see the system now, and the ways in which I’ve deviated from how Kibbe present(ed) it and the ways in which I haven’t.

1. It’s all about geometry.
Kibbe doesn’t talk much about face/body lines in the book. But if you look at the celebrities he uses as examples in the book, you can see it. This is the philosophy used by Guiding Lines. I think that it is something that you can train your eye to see. Lately, my accuracy rate with guessing what people will be typed as by Guiding Lines has been 100%. I don’t think I could do what Sarah does (drawing your face and body lines on top of your photographs), but I am pretty confident in my ability to see it. You can try to do the same thing for yourself by looking for harmony in facial collages with Kibbe celebrities.

2. Forget about personality, taste, etc. when deciding your type.
As I have often complained about, Pinterests and Polyvores, even my own, show just one interpretation of a style. But if you just take the lines and Kibbe’s general guidelines, I think you can express yourself and achieve any style you desire. This is where John Kitchener can help, I think. Or you could try writing a style statement or creating a mood board. And then take that information and filter everything through the lines for your type.

3. I do agree, more or less, with eliminating C, N, and G…
…To a point. I can see in people who are in the Cs, Ns, or Gs that there are people who are much closer to the middle than distinctly, say, Dramatic or Soft Classic. They will probably want to base their style on the middle type, but add touches from the yang or yin type accordingly, pretty much like what I wrote about Gamines here.

4. Modern Kibbe examples are just asking for trouble.
Kibbe has typed some modern celebrities in recent sessions with groups. I believe, however, that the things he says during these sessions are to be taken with a grain of salt, because he likely hasn’t made a thorough study of the celebrity being discussed and just says what’s come to mind from what he’s seen in passing in magazines or whatever.

This is what I’ve come up with so far. Thoughts?

When you first discover Kibbe and start looking at blogs, communities, forums, etc., inevitably you’ll begin asking for feedback on what other people think you are. This can sometimes be helpful, but other times it can set you back farther on your Kibbe journey than you were when you started. The only person who I would 100% trust when it comes to my Kibbe type is Kibbe. While I know many people who have been very satisfied with their analyses from people who offer their own services based on Kibbe, they are still offering their own vision of what Kibbe says.

This fact goes double for random people in communities. No matter how much of an expert someone seems to be presenting themselves as, and no matter how sure they sound of how they see Kibbe, don’t forget to listen to what you think and what you know about yourself. This would apply even to me, if you happen to see me around on message boards or if you ask for my advice in the comments. Like anyone else, I’m always learning new things and coming across new discoveries in this style analysis business, and I don’t claim to be an expert, just someone who loves discussing this subject. This especially goes for things I wrote early in this blog. If you read My Kibbe Journey, I went from thinking I was a Soft Dramatic (correctly recognizing the mix of yin and yang in my features), to Soft Natural (thinking that I was a youthful looking SN, recognizing that I had gamine youthfulness but was too yang for Soft Gamine), to finally Flamboyant Gamine, where I remain today. But since I discovered Kibbe, which was only around April (!) of this year, I have had many a world-shaking revelation.

And there have also been instances where someone else’s vision of Kibbe has distorted what I knew from the beginning, which is that Flamboyant Gamine is where I belong. Others’ doubts and distortions clouded my instinct. How did I know I was Flamboyant Gamine? Looking at the groups of celebrity examples, I knew that the Gamines and Flamboyant Gamines were where my “people” were. While I do distrust Pinterest and Polyvore and recommend staying away until you know the difference between Kibbe’s recommendations and a type’s stereotype, everything on a Flamboyant Gamine board made me go “I WANT THAT.” I knew from experience that these were the clothes that worked for me. And for every style I tried outside of FG, I just wanted to add angles and asymmetry to it. Lastly, and most importantly, if you put my face in the Flamboyant Gamine face collage, it just makes sense there.

Basically, what I want to say is that there are two important sources of information when trying to determine your Kibbe type: things that come straight from the horse’s mouth (the information Kibbe provided in the book, although there are some errors–we just learned that Natalie Wood was supposed to be in the Soft Gamine section!–and things he has said to people during their sessions with him) and you. Use your own eyes to see what people verified by Kibbe have in common, and try to discern patterns. Listen to your own inner voice and how you feel in different clothes, and try to see yourself objectively, although it’s very difficult. It is still fine to ask for advice and to seek out information (or an analysis!) from non-Kibbe stylists whose work is based off of his system or people in communities and on message boards, but ultimately, your happiness with your Image Identity is what matters, not someone else’s opinion. Listen to Emerson and “trust thyself.”

Below are images from my own Pinterest that I have connected with along my Flamboyant Gamine journey. I encourage you to look for places where you see yourself, too.

You may well be able to find something from each Kibbe type that you could potentially wear. And when two types both seem like pretty strong contenders, it may seem like you’ll never nail it down. But one thing I’ve found that can help is defining yourself by your “Don’ts”: what doesn’t work for you, or what key part of the recommendations you can wear, but aren’t absolutely necessary. For instance, confusion between Soft Dramatic and Theatrical Romantic seems to be common: are you Dramatic with a Romantic undercurrent, or are you Romantic with a Dramatic undercurrent? Sometimes, it can be difficult to tell. But if you realize, like some people I’ve come across in the Kibbe world have, that while waist definition looks good on you, you don’t actually need it, then you can probably put yourself in Soft Dramatic.

This should not be confused with “Every recommendation for your type should look good on you.” You should be able to follow your recommendations painlessly and effortlessly, and maybe just skip one or two things. Like I don’t do drop waists, for example, although I might try them on if I lose some weight. But following your recommendations should cut your shopping time in half at the very minimum, and if you’re struggling, you’re probably in the wrong type altogether.

Sometimes, especially if you’re in Classic, Natural, or Gamine, it can be hard to tell which side of the yin/yang balance within your type you fall on. If you’re deciding between Flamboyant Gamine and Soft Gamine, for example, and you seem close to plain old Gamine, you can ask yourself if you do better with rounded shapes or sharp, angled shapes. Do you need a narrow silhouette that then has angles placed on top, or do you do well with a narrow silhouette that is also rounded?

Sometimes there’s a lot of “Cans” in a potential type… but it may the “Don’ts” that reveal our Image Identity.