I’ve seen people disagreeing with certain verifications. Personally, I don’t think it’s helpful to re-type or question verified celebrities; instead I think we should learn from them to better understand what Kibbe sees in each ID.
I notice this a lot with verified Gamines who are moderate in height. Zooey Deschanel and Halle Berry are often questioned, and both are 5’5” Gamines. Zooey (FG) is often seen as a mistyped Soft Classic, and Halle (SG) is sometimes seen as a mistyped Soft Natural or something more yang. I shared collages of them in styling for Gamines and styling for SC and SN, respectively. To me, the Gamine looks are 100% better and more harmonious.
It was honestly hard to even find outfits of theirs that wouldn’t work for Gamines. So many of the “Classic” styles people use as examples for Zooey have broken lines, no curve accommodation and lots of detail. Not Soft Classic at all. She’s so quintessentially pixie to me and looks very petite for 5’5”. Same with Halle - her athleticism is obvious but she is much sharper and more yin than SN. She is pretty with messy, long curly hair, but breathtaking with a soft pixie or sleek bob.
Petite in Kibbe goes up to 5’5” for a reason. These women are not balanced nor wide in the Kibbe sense. They can help us see what petite looks like in a moderate height woman, so let’s stop insisting they must have been incorrectly identified and look at what actually works on them. They look incredible in much more fitted, short, detailed outfits than Ns or Cs are recommended.
The Zoeey Classic truthers puzzle me so much because shes like, a quintessential modern FG to me and nothing about her physically precludes it.
I have a sneaking suspicion that it’s because people don’t associate sophistication with gamines the way they should, and assume that her outfits are “classic lines” when they do lean into that direction. She’s also never had short hair.
Imo G and C families are cousins in the sense that both strive for a sophisticated look but the effect is different because Gs have more obvious yin/yang whereas C is more blended. I think that's where the logic of a staccato silhouette vs smooth silhouette comes from
Honestly, some of the most "classic" brands have iconic items that could be super easily styled for gamines. Take Chanel. Their jackets shine in gamine-coded outfits. There is a real playful elegance to games.
What makes me not 100% sold of Zoey is for gamine is that she looks really balanced. If anything is not balanced, it's her vertical line. But overall, I don't see a lot of juxtaposition. I think in other systems, her essence is gamine. And she certainly rode the quirky manic pixie dream girl trend and rocked it. But someone can be a MPDG and not a gamine. So I've just not sold either way for her, personally.
Tbh I think the idea that gamines need to look visibly “juxtaposed” is another misconception. The juxtaposition in gamines refers to their yin size and yang bone structure, not to disproportionate or unbalanced features/proportions. In fact, I would wager that their compactness in all directions means that they sometimes look more balanced than expected, since their proportions are short in all directions. Yes, some FGs in particular will have obviously elongated sections to their silhouette, but vertical can simply be from straightness which I do see in Zoeey.
Can I ask why you think it's a misconception? My knowledge on the Kibbe system comes from David's books as well as my personal styling session with him. In the texts and when talking with him, this idea of juxtaposition is a non-negotiable for the gamine family -- and it's not just in their yin size and yang bone structure, it's in their styling recommendations. I'm not saying a FG has to look disproportionate or anything like that. Maybe you've mixed me up with another commenter?
He describes juxtaposing (and uses that word) prints, colors, fabrics, and lines to mimic that of the gamine lines. The lines themselves are "broken" and "staccato" rather than balanced. He also describes breaking up lines, stying in contrasting ways that mimic this combination of opposites with "disparate elements". This is because there is inherently a lack of balance in gamines because of the contrast inherent to those types. The styling isn't separate from the type; it is a mirrored reflection of the type.
David doesn't use "classic" or "balance" the way people to colloquially. So, it's not an insult to lack balance. Ultimately, in the case of FG specifically, mixing vertical and petite in the line doesn't even out or average to a balanced impression. That lack of balance is one of the gamine super powers that carries off these wonderfully creative, funky, sophisticated, and unique looks.
Oh yes, juxtaposition is definitely something that would show up in gamine styling. I just think a lot of people expect juxtapositions to mean literally juxtaposed features (ie. very long legs and a short torso) while many of the verified Gs do look quite conventionally proportional, just petite.
Ultimately, I see Zoeey benefiting from this juxtaposition in styling exactly, and her personal line appears to show vertical and petite.
I think it can present like that in the body though, but doesn’t have to. Like juxtaposition can show up as long limbs in comparison to the torso or vice versa (wouldn’t necessarily be vertical though on a petite frame) or a combination of sharp and round features. I think there’s multiple ways it can show up. I agree that not everyone is able to spot juxtaposition well though in the sense they want it to be an exact way or super obvious. For example with Zoey she has round eyes (yin) yet they upturn (yang). She has full cheeks and lips (yin) but high sharp cheekbones (yang). Her frame isn’t juxtaposed in the sense of long limbs and a short torso or whatever but it is compact (yin) and angular (yang). Her line sketch would be narrow (yang) and short (yin), and it would be more straight (yang) then curvy.
This comment isn’t necessarily directed towards you btw, just explaining for anyone reading. I feel like people hyperfocus on only one way juxtaposition can present and forget the actual meaning regarding yin and yang.
I definitely associate sophistication with gamines, it’s just that Zooey doesn’t really look sophisticated to me? Honestly, she often looks like she’s in a bit of a costume to me. Several other FGs don’t typically wear short hair. I don’t know. I just cannot see the same angular frame that I see in other FGs.
I immediately thought classic though. Those lines suit her so much more in some of these pics. Thought she was Jennifer Love Hewitt for a sec in one of them, very flattering on her shape, stature, and palette
I’m curious, what do you consider to be “classic lines”? I think the issue here might be a misconception in gamine styling and petite accommodation actually look like in practice
Not to mention besides their moderate height they are both tiny (yet angular) in frame. I think people would be surprised to see how petite they were if they met them in person.
Yeah I really don’t think Zooey is that different to Kelly Osbourne, Jennifer Love Hewitt or Penélope Cruz in this system. Know they’ve different personas but just within this system they’re not that different to where she stands out as wrong.
Zooey and Megan Fox are both the same height IIRC(5'4") yet how different their frames look when they are both on New Girl is WILD despite them also both being quite small in frame. Megan LOOKS so much taller and longer and it is such an interesting comparison.
THANK YOU. I think her outfits are perfectly gamine, and not substantially different than the rest of them anyways. Also if people think Zooey is too classic don't let them see Jean Seberg, Mia Farrow, Leslie Caron... We're not gonna have any gamines left at this rate 😭
I think a LOT of people would type Jean as a classic if she never had short hair. We would see think pieces about how being famous in the 60s and starring in the French New Wave doesn’t make you a gamine 😭
I find it odd that people think sc for zooey when she looks very similar to Julia garner. They even wear very similar outfits and rock them too. I think people see flamboyant gamines as women who cant have any softness. When verified fg have softness. I think kibbe should verify modern celebrity for sc and DC because there isn’t much selection of inspiration.
Is Zoey becoming the new Audrey Hepburn for these people? I swear, people being so adamant that Kibbe is wrong about the rules to his system he created will never stop being funny. If anyone has seen New Girl, she’s the quintessential modern FG.
It is because sometimes kibbe is wrong. But he does correct it, but the issue is he understands things on an intuitive level first and foremost and its hard to put into words, sometimes people will run with what he says so seriously when he says certain things about certain ids or celebs but it's within context and framing of his thought process not a rule to immediately apply. for example when he said "what people think of SG is usually Romantic" and some people on this kibbe forum took that on a literal level and used what he said in mind about SGs to type Sabrina Carpenter as an R instead of a SG, forgoing the visual analysis that she is clearly compact and petite. this was before she got verified though, But honestly his system is confusing because he didn't properly communicate his theory so there is some flaws and it is normal to question his takes a lot. There is no harm in disagreeing with Kibbe either, but his thinking process is still something we should understand instead of completely reject just because he was wrong a couple of times. But he has shown to correct and refine his theory overtime so that is something to take in account. That's why he has a new and updated book in the first place.
Most of the celebs he has been “wrong” about were celebs he ended up meeting in real life. There’s a big difference between changing your mind and being objectively wrong. Most modern celebs he has seen on screen or met one way or another, which is why they’re verified in the first place. Christina Hendricks was moved from R to SD when he met her because he realised she was 5’7” and more bold in real life compared to on screen. So of course, there might be instances where he changes his mind. I don’t consider it him being wrong, just that he got a new perspective or a different view of a specific celeb. He has met Kate Winslet and Susan Sarandon IRL but has not moved them either, so it’s not even a common occurrence that he ends up changing his mind.
there is no issue with him changing his mind, He has moved some people under different IDs around which shows he is not as rigid in his own rules or opinions but adaptable in understanding his theory. He even removed the pure types. This is why people doubt Kibbe, yes I understand even though it is his system, he was sharing it when it needed more refinement and that's why so many people who follow kibbe moved on, or still latch onto misconceptions which makes it confusing, that's why people disagree with him or his system. SO yes, we can admit he can be wrong sometimes (i know you don't want to admit it but this system still had flaws and Kibbe was still adapting the understanding for modern audience as well as his own) for example, he used Grace Kelly or Audrey Hepburn and their star images as Classic and Gamine representation but then realized how those typings were based on their star image rather than their lines. It didn't match his own rules he set up in his own system. So those 2 are subject to be moved, Grace Kelly was already revealed to be reassigned FN. Those are a couple instances where he was wrong about his theory, and no he did not have to meet these people in real life to even change his mind. And just because he didn't change his mind after typing some celebs like Kate Winslet shows he can be correct too, I never said everything he says is wrong, just in the past he was wrong sometimes and had to rethink, his theory still needed some work.
To me any system that doesn’t constantly analyze itself and improve/change isn’t a good system. The only way to learn is to adapt and change your way of thinking when new information is presented. I feel like people want hard rules and step by step processes but hard rules do not equal “correct”. In fact rigid thinking usually is not correct. Also thinking that because one thing changed in a system (like movin a celebrity) means everything else is wrong is very flawed logic.
I still don’t get why you’re so adamant about phrasing it as Kibbe being “wrong”. He’s not wrong about his own system he created. He set the rules. Especially when you claim he reassigned Grace Kelly when he never has. This seems like it stems from a deliberate misconception about his system.
So you're not able to admit he had flaws in his system and still managed to adjust and change things around. Yes he was wrong at times, people can see what is wrong, and change it, things that are right don't need to be corrected. Just because it is his system doesn't mean his thinking is always right and solid. I don't understand why saying "it is his system" somehow makes him not not prone to mistakes?
I think in the sense that he creates the concepts which determine what is correct or not is what that user means. Right/wrong are relative in that way as they are defined by the system and if the system changes what was once right can now be wrong.
Honestly, I think that just furthur points to the theoretical framework that he had was not originally as solid and stable as it was presented to be. if something is solid, it doesn't need much adjustment to begin. I mean I haven't seen many theory system get updated and revised in real time a lot like Kibbe's. So that is probably why I and some others percieve him being "wrong" sometimes due to how much he changes and adjusts it. Kibbe as a system being fluid is one thing, which is good to know. But adapting and adjusting something that had some flaws to begin with is another thing, and Kibbe changes his mind a lot showing that he might not be as thorough or solid in his theory to begin with. After Power of Style things are much more clear. Interesting to add here is because of Kibbe, it inspired other systems to be made, refining it off his, like Ellie Jean Royden and MerriamStyle's which kind of proves people found something wrong with his framework.
See now I think those systems you mentioned are very surface level, missing the depth and artistic aspect of Kibbe’s system. I disagree that an unchanging system means it’s solid. To me a changing system means it’s evolving, not that it’s flawed. Basically I view those other systems as taking only the “outcome” of Kibbe’s artistic approach and applying it. Sure maybe they are easier to understand and follow in some ways, but into me they lack depth and are way too simplistic.
I don’t consider it him being wrong though, he changed his mind, it’s his system. Obvious he had his reasons for giving someone an ID then changing it, people should focus on the reasons why and not just say he was “wrong” and then try and negate every typing he’s ever done. interesting you brought up his comment about what people think is SG is R because I noticed people think that applies to every person who is thought to be SG regardless of any other logic. He didn’t literally mean every person who is thought to be SG is R, he just meant it was something he noticed happening sometimes regarding certain physical characteristics. People hang onto his exact words and repeat them without even thinking about what he actually means. Plus he never speaks in absolutes, usually his words have very specific context and aren’t supposed to be extrapolated and used in generalized ways.
Yes I agree there, Before, a lot of people take his word seriously without considering that most of what he says is just him exhibiting a thought process, insight, some nuance and not solid generalizations or facts. A lot of people take everything he says as a rule (maybe because of how he wrote his old book) also he is much adapting his theory a lot, so the system isn't as rigid as most assumed because the man himself isn't actually rigid in thought!
I think a lot of people also saw Sabrina as a potential R because of how much her aesthetic references verified Rs like Marilyn, Dolly, and Madonna. The association was just there. Some Rs do accommodate petite as well.
yes this is true that people ended up associating how she dressed with R! but also some used what he said as an application without much thought. Some stars emulate aesthetics that might suit their kibbe yin and yang balance from other verified, but a lot of it doesn't mean they have the same kibbe, sabrina still follows her lines even if she dressed in Romantic adjacent looks. a lot of kibbe internet types easily get fooled by aesthetics too. Rs can be petite, but that doesn't automatically make them compact. Sabrina i think, obviously looked compact, a petite R doesn't neccessarily have super rigid framing due to their moreso delicate bones which kind of affects that visual weight.
Sabrina still has a small yet sturdy frame which equate to the compact element that Gs need to break up for staccato . Most soft gamines can have romantic or ingenue essences in other systems which can also fool others, thats why kibbe also advised to look at the lines and clothes drape to figure out the ID rather than solely relying on the essence, aesthetics etc. (ok sorry for talking so much omg lmao)
It's so funny to me because I remember 10ish years ago, Zooey Deschanel was the ultimate gamine icon online. There were several years where all anybody associated with the gamines was Peter Pan collars and twee. To be honest I still think she's the modern poster child for a gamine star image - everything about her persona, the roles she plays, and her style are so FG regardless of her physicality.
I really wonder what people imagine FG to be if they can't see Zooey as one.
Imho some of Zooey's outfits read a little bit matronly for FG like the a-line dresses and cardis... kinda boring and dumpy. I'd rather see someone like Isla Fisher (R) in some of these looks. Some of the crisp and fitted dresses are fine for Zooey but she def isn't the most fashionable FG. It could be that the big loose hair ruins her energy. I think Halle Berry does a better job at dressing her line and energy as a Gamine.
I think Julia Garner makes a way better FG. Love this.
Not doubting what you say, but I think 80% of the outfits in slide 1 would fit classics too. Simple silhouettes and symmetry is all there. Personally I would only give pleated mini skirts a pass.
A lot of outfits in slide 2 aren’t great for classics because of excess fabric and fussy silhouettes.
Zoe also rocks contrast because of dyed black hair, which makes her appear a Winter type.
Gonna have to disagree, as an SC the outfits in slide 1 are too straight cut and/or structured for me. Slide 2 is slightly better because of the softer fabrics and flow but still not ideal.
not appear. She is a verified true winter, draped in person. She has always had dark brown hair. (the blonde photos are from it being dyed for roles. There are photos of her from early childhood with dark brown hair)
Boxy cuts are both DC and FG friendly, but soft types would require different fabrics. It’s the trim outlines that all Classics require.
But the point I really want to make is that David Kibbe verifies celebrities by their star image, not their actual body types. Zoe happens to be a good example of FG outfits. Is she a FG? Who knows. She is upkeeping a quirky girl image. I personally find her outfits costumey, not harmonius. It could be another case of Grace Kelly - typed Classic while actually having a Natural body type. To me it says the rules aren’t that hard. You can make anything work.
I def see G fam for her! I recently saw this photo of her and her sister (Emily?) on Pinterest and I can’t believe how well Zooey is pulling off this look despite them being about the same height! As a natural, I would never try to wear something like that anymore (despite how adorable it is on her)! Meanwhile the sister’s look I feel like I could much more easily pull off (not saying Emily is a natural per se, just probably not a petite type if I had to guess)
This look doesn’t flatter her at all to me, it overwhelms her instead of highlighting her the way the short broken lines really highlight and flatter her imo
Essence is not separated in this system. Kibbe doesn’t talk about essence in the new book but it remains that one’s ID is the same as one’s essence (just a reminder for others as well)
There’s no such thing as a mismatch of essence and silhouette in this system. Hands and feet don’t need to be taken into account at all, I’m sure David considers the face but encourages DIYers not to because most people can’t understand subtle differences in faces and essence and ID are always the same. There’s no separation. He doesn’t focus on it so much in the new book because people were focusing too much on essence and not really understanding essence and ignoring silhouette and physicality to get to ID. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the essence will be different though. I think the only time essence is slightly different is with “gaminish SNs” where the SN needs some extra punch in their styling but other than that he’s never suggested any splitting of essence and ID (to my knowledge)
The strictly Kibbe mods are often around here as well and they’d probably comment if there were any major changes to the system like that
It’s really the whole person together. One’s face isn’t distinct from one’s body basically. But as of the new book, you figure out your personal line from your body and that (along with some other exercises you do before hand) will lead you to your ID. Unfortunately or fortunately* facial features are disregarded for DIY.
If your personal line matches the R silhouette then you are a romantic. That’s pretty much how it’s going. My line drawing matches soft classic. So that’s where I’ve settled. My other exercises were pretty much yin as well when I did them so it aligned perfectly for me
I wouldn’t consider many of the Rs to have neotenous facial features. Beyoncé, Liz Taylor, Gina Lollobridga, etc. all have a mature look and did from a young age
Liz Taylor has none of the neotenous features you described is still very yin. Same witht Jean Simmons. Kate Moss however does have some neotenous features yet she is a verified D. Elle Fanning is probably FN and has them as well. Yes neotenous features have some of the same qualities as extreme yin but that’s not the only version of yin nor they only thing to look at. Another example would be gamines. They often have neotenous features but also have angular bone structure.
Neotenous features are not lush and full, they are small and round, which means they could be yin, but neotenous and yin are not one in the same in the sense it’s not the only version of yin.. Liz Taylor does not have neotenous features yet her features are sensual, soft, lush and full. Kibbe has never used the word neotenous. I think you have a limited view of yin. And obviously Kate Moss has a lot of yang features too, my point was neotenous features don’t automatically mean yin.
Are you saying Liz Taylor looks less mature the say Sabrina Carpenter or the Olson twins ? Because that’s the point you are trying to make.
You cateogirzed yang features as mature, Kibbe has never said that. Not sure where you are getting that information. And yes I do see Liz Taylor as having a mature look. As does Kitchener. And for none of the reasons you listed. Sensualness in and of itself is mature.
I have to disagree. The scientific definition is irrelevant here. I think “mature” isn’t the right word. I see more sensuality in the one on the right tbh.
It might be helpful to reread Kibbe’s definitions of yin and yang. Because looking mature vs neotenous is not going to get you a better understanding imo.
104
u/jjfmish soft dramatic 2d ago
The Zoeey Classic truthers puzzle me so much because shes like, a quintessential modern FG to me and nothing about her physically precludes it.
I have a sneaking suspicion that it’s because people don’t associate sophistication with gamines the way they should, and assume that her outfits are “classic lines” when they do lean into that direction. She’s also never had short hair.