( Long msg ahead sorry lol ) Still don't know how kibbe came up with such a genius way to type bodies , like it's insane to know someone's type without mathematical measurements , just with height ( which isn't MASSIVELY important, it's more about the perception as you say ) and how fat/muscles/bone structure are distributed and what kind of fabrics could be draped on top . And this isn't the end of it ! Truly baffling to me . Also I can confidentiality say that you , caro , are the absolute best at analyzing and finding stuff that most people miss . I always learn so much from you so thank you very much ❤😎
thank you! now, to me the genius of kibbe is: when hollywood's glamour era faded, he took the work of belle northrup + harriet mcjimsey and galvanized it into a styling method anyone can use to accept and clothe their physique. i simply think of him as the one stylist who pulled off the best marketing. his consultation prices mirror that. but the whole yin/yang concept came from belle's book on costume history.
then, mcjimsey created the 6 main types (see below), the lost ingenue type included. even in this rudimentary system with all its dangerous "looks equals personality" and "you can type by expression" faults, i can identify myself as a dramatic (being 5'9 narrows it down for me anyway, average heights have a harder time finding their ID). kibbe only took the good stuff and ran with it, he didn't invent it.
mcjimsey even had a base analysis of how our frame, curves, and muscles determined type. to an exaggerated degree, even typing by posture and gait and perceived level of elegance, etc. romantics could have violet eyes, even, probably to prove a point how dreamy they are? thankfully, kibbe removed a lot of that, though he added his own fantasy bits sometimes. still, those 6 types were pretty concise and had the names we know before david came.
gladly it's no longer some racial personality system. for mcjimsey, only the ingenue is "fair", and the dramatic is "dark, olive". i myself am severely pale, rather fitting kibbe's dramatic description of "anything goes, as long as it's extreme", better managing to gauge the concept. advances in seasonal color analysis really helped there, too. or, many of us don't fit the "type yourself by voice" schtick obviously, any type can be "flirtatious", and classics can have green eyes. the list goes on. the metamorphosis made all of this more universal. it could be less embellished, but i guess part of kibbe is the lack of science and math indeed 😅 we could use more ratios and measurements there.
he succeeded getting all the credit largely by promising everyone the same level glow-up no matter their body, arranging and diversifying belle's yin/yang idea to 13 and not 2 types. he IS baffling in how he created this complicated but often accurate categorization that is more applicable than not (i personally am much happier finally knowing and styling my own type, it worked for me - otherwise, i wouldn't talk to you about it. kibbe helps me understand why i look the way i look, so i figure it helps others, too). and it got less weirdly racist and MBTI-like nowadays, thankfully. still room to improve. we came from this:
height is important for modern kibbe, the old style relies on old hollywood roles and flair, that's where perception came in. but even mcjimsey had a height cutoff, to be a natural or dramatic you had to be at least 5'7 and i agree with it. that's just where we see vertical, globally, past the 170cm mark a person is not tiny in any relation. although, that is also a socially constructed bias. kibbe bridging subjective and objective aesthetics is the crux of the matter.
as for the missing 6th type, many people have tried to add to the system, while kibbe ironically subtracted from it, removing pure types except D and R. personally, his 80s version was perfect as it was, that's why it blew up: because it would fit all of us, and anyone could find themselves. deleting 3 whole types was a severe decision, imo. the community compensated by adding ethereal, oneiric, etc essences and mixing style systems. so far, i'd rather see a better fusion of color theory and kibbe first. new types are experimentation.
So I tried to kibbe type myself and I got that I'm a soft classic and I looked at the outfit recommendations and I just.. I had to laugh. They were so horrible, ugly and boring. I think I'm just gonna stick to gamine and natural fashion, all the classic options look like something a 60 year old would wear 😰
a frequently given reminder. kibbe’s book came out in the 80s. those were outfits meant for 20 year olds, and now that audience is... bingo, 60 years old. it doesn’t stop there: his types are based on belle northrup’s yin/yang idea in the 30s. it has to be taken in the context of the time. it’s all outdated, focused on the past. hell, kibbe likes the 50s cinema. belle used historical examples from centuries ago to explain her theory since she was a fashion historian.
even kibbe’s updated version needs major updates for the recs, the descriptions are vague, strange, or too sentimental to be accurate, and many people who make these outfit pinterest boards (based on their own taste!) are not exactly teens: the typology took ages to be recognized among younger people. so the material we have is already geared towards different audiences. it’s not a system for youngsters, you’ll only fully develop your type in your mid-twenties anyway.
classic is not a youthful kind of type to begin with. your style will always be more simple and conservative to look good on you even if most classic don’t like to hear it. the most lackluster clothes will be elegant and pretty on this type. natural is gonna be too big on you, gamine is too small and overstated. it’s not going to fit in the first place if you’re really a soft classic, and look hilarious rather than an outfit. kibbe has talked a lot about people rejecting their category and how to craft your own style with clothes you like, however the exactly recommended clothes will look different on you than on paper (!) and might change your mind. if not, then not. just observe:
this is what classic wearing natural looks like (it’d look better on namjoon, FN)
this is what classic wearing gamine looks like (it’d look better on yoongi, G)
this is what classic wearing classic looks like:
up to you to decide. sometimes, the clothes that look the ugliest and inappropriate in the store are the ones that fit and make you look put together the most simply based on the lines you’ve been given. it’s a very strange thing and out of your control, i know. the best way to go about it is probably trying the neighboring categories you like better and see how it goes.
