u/Jamie8130

I was watching this video where supposedly the designer Carolina Herrera is talking about five women that she finds elegant. I quickly realised it was AI slop content, which was disappointing and unsettling, but I kept listening, since to my surprise, some of the things discussed sounded a lot like Kibbe concepts. She 'talked' about Lauren Bacall, Sophia Loren, Lee Radziwill, Nancy Regan, and Bianca Jagger, and the parts about Lauren Bacall and Sophia Loren include spot on D/SD commentary. These are the excerpts I thought were particularly Kibbe-related and interesting:

1) Lauren Bacall could wear a beautifully tailored jacket, a simple blouse, trousers, very little jewelry, and somehow none of it felt conservative. On another woman, those pieces might have looked sensible. On Bacall, they had tension. She did not spend the rest of her life trying to remain the young Lauren Bacall that is where many beautiful women become trapped they discover the decade in which the world love them most and then they spend years trying to preserve it. Lauren allowed herself to become an adult. Then she allowed herself to become an older woman. Her style mature with her. The tailoring remained. The confidence remained, but she did not dress as though she were competing with a photograph taken 40 years earlier. I find that enormously elegant. There was also nothing sugary about her. And I mean that as a compliment. Women are sometimes told that femininity must always be softened, a prettier neckline, a more delicate color, something charming. Lauren didn't need charming. She could wear strong clothes because there was strength in the woman already. Look at photographs of her in trousers. Look at the jackets. Look at how often the clothes seem almost borrowed from the vocabulary of men's wear. Then look at her face. There is never any doubt that you are looking at a woman. That is the trick. She didn't need the clothes to announce femininity for her. She brought it herself. And uh as she grew older uh another quality became more visible. Authority. Not the authority of someone demanding attention. The authority of someone who has stopped worrying about whether attention will come. That may be one of the privileges of age. When you use it properly, you stop decorating insecurity. Lauren Bacall had enough personality to leave empty space around herself. A clean jacket, a beautiful neckline, perhaps an extraordinary pair of earrings, then stop. The woman could finish the sentence. I wouldn't describe her elegance as delicate. I would describe it as intelligent.

2. Sophia did not become elegant by becoming quieter. She became elegant by becoming more completely herself. And that is difficult when the world is constantly suggesting improvements. Change the hair, change the makeup, um, change the silhouette, make yourself more international, make yourself more fashionable, make yourself easier to understand. Sophia seemed to understand that if she removed too much, she would remove the very thing people remembered. So, she kept the drama. She kept the femininity. She kept the curves. But look carefully at her best photographs and you discover something important. The woman is dramatic. The construction underneath is often disciplined. A beautifully defined waist, a clean neckline, a dress that understands her proportions instead of fighting them. That is why the result works. Sensuality without structure can become costume. Sophia had structure and she knew exactly what kind of woman she was dressing. I particularly admire women who do not confuse elegance with becoming culturally anonymous. Why should an Italian woman have to look like a woman from Park Avenue? Why should a Venezuelan woman have to look Parisian? Why should everybody arrive at the same answer? That would make fashion terribly boring. Sophia's beauty belonged to a place, a temperament, and a history. She carried all of that with her. And somehow as the decades passed, she remained recognizably Sophia. That is not an accident. It means the identity was stronger than the trend. There is another lesson in her later years that I find important. She never became invisible. Women are sometimes encouraged to retreat as they age. Wear less. Be quieter. Don't attract too much attention. Sophia never accepted disappearance as a requirement of maturity. She could still wear color. She could still dress for a entrance. She could still enjoy being Sophia Lauren. Why shouldn't she? Elegance should not have an expiration date. Nor should personality.

I couldn't find any interviews of Carolina Herrera talking about Lauren Bacall etc., and this same video appears across different channels, in one of them I saw a disclaimer that it was a 'creative' project made by piercing together different materials and sources, so I have no idea where they found the info, but it's curious how it indirectly touches on Kibbe's philosophy.

I was looking at this photograph of Scarlett Johansson, because I love this style of dress and how she wore it. It made me think on what about this dress works on Scarlett and what does not, from the point of view of the SN silhouette guidelines we got in the book, as well as yin and yang balance.

What elements I think work, and why she overall looks great in it:

-She is a beautiful celebrity in a pretty couture dress. Not all looks have to be 100% harmonious with the guidelines to create a beautiful look, and in different occassions she may wish to express different things to her essence.
-The dress is described as a 'compact woven mini dress', and indeed it requires compact proportions. Scarlett may not be Kibbe-petite, but she is conventionally petite, so the vertical compactness works in her favour. The different parts of the dress sit correctly on her figure (although, there may have been tailoring involved). Comparing this to the model; her vertical makes the dress look more like a long tunic.
-The horizontal compactness of the dress would normally not work with width, but because it has very low-cut and open armholes on the sides, it helps with the fit. The neckline might be a tad constricting, but it's not noticeable.
-The dress and her styling is not very fussy, as per the guidelines, including her hair and shoes.

What elements I think don't work as well:

-The material of the dress; it's a stiff woven fabric that holds its shape. This material is not ideal for curve because it can't drape around it, and there is no give to the fabric for curves to push out.
-The cut of the dress: it's cut straight with an A-line, the effect is very structured, and it obscures any underlying shape since the person has to fit into the dress, rather than the dress fit around their own shape.
-The colour of the dress; while I personally like the contrast of black clothes on blonde people, this is likely a bit harsh, and not the best colour in her palete.
-The yin/yang balance of the dress. I think this is the element where the Kibbe principles most come into play. The dress is small, sharp yang, with small yin details in the bow and buttons. Scarlett's features are bold and lush, they are neither sharp nor small, even if overall she is a small person. She has a yang bone structure but with a certain softness and lushness in her flesh that is not reflected in the lines, fabric, and image of the dress.

All this made me wonder, what makes a harmonious look? If the majority of the guidelines are followed, is this enough? Or will there be a slight disconnect, and in those occassions the person will not be able to make connections as well as when they are perfectly harmonious with their innate balance. Does what we want to communicate affects things and take precedence? I'm curious about everyone's thought, or if you also just want to gush at the dress ^^

One of the films recommended in the book for the Carrot and Cake game is 'The Women', but I couldn't find it to stream, however I happened upon a 1956 remake in technicolor called 'The Opposite Sex', which apparently had some differences in the story, but also had a lot of fun and extravagant costumes for the actresses, a couple of which were Kibbe-verified as well. The main part was played by June Allyson (unverified, but maybe SN or SG?), and also featured Joan Collins (verified TR), Joan Blondell (verified SN), Ann Sheridan (unverified C/N fam?), Dolores Gray (unverified D/SD?), and my favourite Agnes Moorehead (unverified D) in a smaller part. I captured a few costumes, and the film is here on YT if anyone wants to have a look.

Hey everyone, a few days ago I posted my yin/yang soiree examples from the corresponding game in the book, and I was encouraged to make a more extreme version of the yang board, so that I may have a better appreciation and contrast with the yin version. I also found it very helpful seeing examples of other soirees and expand my idea of the game, so hopefully these updated boards better align with the goal of the exercise!

For the people that have done the 'Your Yin/Yang Soirees' game from the book, what have you learned from it, and how do you think it has helped you on your journey? It became one of my favourite exercises when I decided to take the time and look up all the references to yin and yang objects, places, buildings, eras and art styles that were mentioned in the book, because it gave me a new appreciation for both. At first I thought my own soirees would be very different, but after looking up at many images and paying attention to my reactions, I decided that I should focus on the instruction of ''represent your personal vision of either extreme'', and pick what I truly thought was ''delightful'', and I think they do look similar from that point of view, as they are both playful, a little retro, and a little whimsical, but they both absolutely fill me with delight (I have the yang one as my wallpaper right now :)). Another thing I noticed is that the kind of yang details that I like are for the most part geometric and smaller in scale, while the kind of yin details that I like are gently curved and busy. From the two I prefer the yang version more, but if I had to create the perfect soiree, it would have elements from both, because looking up at images I discovered I was consistently drawn to shapes with both contrasted geometric patterns and scalloped edges (like certain awnings, tablecloths and umbrellas), which I thought was very interesting as well. Anyway, here are both my versions, I would love to hear any feedback, and also experiences with your own soirees!

I was looking at photos of Sofia Coppola, and had some disjointed thoughts regarding her style from the lens of the Kibbe perspective. I'm not sure if she has been verified, but she is often considered to be in the Classic family. Now regardless of whether this is true or not, she does seem to favour a very consistent classic style in her personal life, and if you've seen any of her interviews or talks, she has a very even-tempered manner that reminds me a lot of the descriptions of classics in Metamorphosis. But I'm not concerned on what her ID is, but rather whether her style is harmonious on her and whether it goes with her beauty. Celebrities have the kind of access to fashion and styling that they usually look good in most outfits, without this necessarily meaning that the outfits are the most harmonious on them. This is compounded by still photography, lighting, and angles, and might look more flattering that it would up close. I used to think that her trademark style was great, and I loved seeing photos of her outfits, but then I found some editorial pictures with a bolder approach, and I loved those on her even more. It made me think that while she looks always very put together and polished, maybe her personal style makes her look kind of lifeless, because she actually has a bold beauty that needs those bolder elements. And again this is not about her being a classic or not, she could follow a bolder style within the classic silhouette and guidelines. Her version of a classic needs a bolder touch, imo. I still love her style, but now I can't unthink that idea. What do you think? Is her style harmonious or do you think there are things that could look even more harmonious on her? Of course big part of harmony is incorporating our own dreams and desires, and to that part no outside observer can weigh in, since it's something personal to the individual, but putting this aside in the interest of discussion.

This is just for fun! What type would you say this hidden mystery celeb is? I know the photos are not the best for typing, but I tried to choose the more incospicuous ones. If you've recognized who it is, please don't give it away, I will update the post later to reveal them :)

EDIT TO UPDATE: It's Emma Watson! Thanks to everyone who played even though it's not easy to type from photos, let alone cropped ones :) I think the most answers were around C and N fam with some for D and G fam, which was super interesting! I think it might point out to one of her accommodations at least being vertical, though until David verifies her we won't know for sure.

One of the celebrities that the community can't reach any concensus on their ID is Rachel McAdams, and there have been many posts here on the sub discussing her possible type, but there's never a general agreement, and a lot of us would love for Kibbe to verify her for this reason. I have heard that over on FB (please correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm not on FB myself) David has said 'not TR', but that's all we know for certain so far. I was wondering if the reason has to do with her facial features: they give her a kind of sweet or ingenue image (and that's why I think that hairstyles with curling look better on her than very straight or geometric styles) but her body can handle slightly straighter silhouettes, although I still think that super straight styles are not her best.

Yin-yang balance is continuous throughout the body, but sometimes the perception of it might be different--is it possible there is a dichotomy there that is throwing us off? Or is it just the fact that she is moderate in frame and height (celebheights lists her at 5'4) which is always hard, since most IDs can be possible? I think I see a softness on her regardless of weight, but as to whether that's because of more yin, or if it might be soft yang, I'm not sure. Would love to know why others think she is one of the harder Kibbe cases (not just opinions on her ID but why the ID is not as easy to place as with other celebs).

Edited to add: slide 7 is Rachel Bilson accidentally! ^^;; Thanks to u/Decent-Department60 for pointing it out! Also, after some digging I did of the photos (because google results are all over the place), it's actually Emily Blunt in slide 15 >.<;

The last post (sorry for the spam today) is some outfit photos I had saved of SJP (mostly outside of SaTC) that showcased how well she embodies both the nonchalant and showstopping elements of FN in her looks. I noticed that she doesn't shy away from relaxed elements, but she knows her proportions so well that they they work beautifully without looking too boho or 70s hippie, which is a big wrongful stereotype with the N fam. I also love her 90s looks, the minimalism and strapless silhouettes looked awesome on her.

This second post is about Gena Rowlands, because I'm fascinated by the combination of quietness/discreetness and moody intensity that she had. It was very well shown in the film Gloria, that there was something subtly dangerous underneath the quiet waters. I also just love her features, she had an amazing look, imo. There are a lot of publicity photos from when she was in her older years, and she was always impeccable in her appearance, literally not a hair out of place, which is the type of look that classic shine in. She also could work some bolder elements with ease, she once wore a long cape over a dress for the Oscars which looked fabulous on her.

I had some images saved to make a couple of posts on verified celebrities, so I'll start with the beautiful Suzanne Pleshette, who is a verified DC. I've always thought there was something very languid and debonair about her looks, and her eyes had this dreamy, far-away look (her gaze kind of reminds me of Lana Turner). In her younger photos she looked a bit soft, but in her later photos the sharpness pops off. I loved how she went more va-va-voom with her styling compared to other classics of the time, and watching some of her 80s interviews on the Tonight Show etc., she had that kind of surprising direct/spicy sense of humour that classics can have. Something I noticed about her and Gena Rowlands (next post) was how even in their senior years, they were always impeccable in their hair styling, jewellery and make-up, always looking very polished and put-together.

I was re-listening to one of David's interviews, I often go back to them because I love his philosophy and the way he talks about personal style, and each time I discover something different. This time a couple of questions propped up regarding some of the things he mentioned. One of them was how we have to always relate style back to our personal situation, dreams, life aspirations, and so on. He said (here, around the 19:57 mark):

"Dreamboards are not like visionboards or moodboards, those are different ideas. Dreams connect you with your soul, mood , vision... they are wonderful things, but they're different. Dreams are where aspirations are, and they will tell you what your heart is longing for in ways that you haven't even admitted to yourself yet. Start there. But then it has to come through the template that you've been blessed with, you know, your body in a lot of spiritual practices is a temple, so your body is a template and a temple. It is the vessel you've been blessed with and you're a painting and you're a sculpture. So understand that, because if you don't understand, you're not really working with yourself."

Later on he is talking about how each person's version of an ID is like countries within a continent, it can be completely different. I really liked both ideas, because there's a lot of truth to them, and because they give us a lot of freedom within our respective IDs. But this made me think of something other members have talked about here in the sub as well, particularly u/TiredWinterDisaster, which is basically why then have ID essence descriptions at all? Why did he add 'Deco Dynamo' to Dramatics for instance? I understand that Dramatics have a silhouette and yin/yang balance that can communicate a very clear depiction of 'deco dynamo' (and this is useful for character building in a film), but if IDs are indeed varied as they relate to individuals (due to their dreams/aspirations/life situations being varied), then why add that essence description? Why not have a couple examples instead, like: "Here is a 5'10 dramatic who feels like a deco dynamo, and here is a 5'6 Dramatic who likes the otherwordly look of elves, they both share vertical, narrow and sharp yang, here are ways ideas how they can achieve their desired style''.

Which brings me to me to the second thing that came up: in this interview and in others, he emphasizes the importance of technique being the thing that gives you the freedom to achieve what you want within the context of your template. Is knowledge of the accommodations, and the short silhouette descriptions in the IDs enough for the average person to acquire a basic technique? I understand that fabrics changed since Metamorphosis, but I still think that approach was more useful to finding out what kind of construction elements in garments lend themselves to different silhouette considerations.

Metamorphosis had a hyperspecific prescriptive approach and POS has a more interpretive approach, but I still think the average DIYer might be better helped by something in the middle. Because he is right, we do need to have technique, and when I think about it, people who have signature p[personal styles, have all the elements that he talks about in common: knowing what they want to communicate about themselves with their style, and knowing how to dress their specific proportions and features. I think having ID essence descriptions messes with the former, and not expanding on technique in the new book messes with the latter.

I was browsing some old Hollywood movies the other day and happened upon one with Joanne Woodward and remembered that she is verified as SN by Kibbe, so I went looking for some of her pictures. The more photos I saw the more something became very evident: how at ease she looked, how comfortable in her skin, and how free in her movements. She is a beautiful woman and looked amazing in many different styles and outfits, but what was the common point was that she looked comfortable in her skin in every one, be it a gown or a casual look. This has to do with personality, life factors, and so on, but I wondered if some part of it was also because she leaned into her type with her styling, hence why the total effect seemed so congruent, unpretentious, and fun. Of course it was also the specific poses from the photos and the fact in most of them she was with her long-time husband Paul Newman, but somehow you could tell this was how she'd be IRL (or I guess that's the power of the studio type casting system :)). I think one interpretation of sensual, in the ''fresh and sensual'' moniker that Kibbe used for SN, is this element: being comfortable with yourself, the fact that in the way she seemed to always be connected to her body. I'm not sure I'm describing this very coherently, but if you browse her photos I think it definitely comes through. And I think it's because even in her real life she leaned into the archetype (some old Hollywood stars didn't necessarily lean into their type in their personal style), that's why she always seemed to look so authentic. I thought that was very interesting from a Kibbe PoV, and I also just loved looking at her photos, there was a calm assuredness blended with a fun exuberance that I found very appealing!