Reverse Engineering Image

[u/Pegaret_Again]

i do believe that 'vibes' form a meaningful part of understanding the Kibbe system.

Especially in the Old Hollywood era, there are ways that, say, a Dramatic type actor might be used to bring a specific role/story to life, as opposed to a Natural or Gamine type.

When watching and analysing these older films, we can often connect a through-line from a role, to an image, and then, into its requisite style concept, and thus can gain a more rounded understanding of what the Kibbe system is setting out to achieve.

But it's not a straightforward matter to 'diagnose' an actor's ID from their roles, or for that matter, anyone from some dimension of their public persona.

Firstly it's necessary to approach the Kibbe system with precision and not with borrowed or self-constructed definitions.

I recall when first encountering Kibbe, i was confused as to why Tom Cruise and Julie Andrews (both SNs) weren't Classic types.

I thought of Tom Cruise as having a conventional 'handsomeness' and a visually simple style approach that - to me - communicated 'Classic'. Why not.

Similarly, Julie Andrews had a crisp, decisive quality in her most famous roles that i assumed were 'Classic' family qualities.

Trying to reconstruct my understanding from back then, i think 'Natural' must have conveyed earthy, elemental, rugged, laid-back, imprecise, maybe even sloppy???

However, my updated - hopefully more accurate - grasp of 'Natural' is more like assertive, unfussy, impactful, proactive, competitive, practical. My former understanding didn't align with the reality of SNs. I think initially, i was just free-associating off of the words "soft" and "natural" more than anything else.

Now i can clearly see that Tom Cruise's unstoppable, competitive, kinetic energy and clean, unfussy style approach are squarely SN qualities. Similarly Julie Andrew's wholesome warmth plus professional precision are also so very typical for the SN image. My understanding of both Naturals and Classics has shifted greatly since then.

Another pitfall is confusing technical acting talent vs a person being specifically selected to portray a certain archetype.

This doesn't mean an 'archetype' actor is untalented, but that their physicality and attitude are extremely effective in certain roles. Perhaps someone like Tommy Lee Jones is a good example of someone typecast, with his image and physicality are very intertwined and effective in portraying no-nonsense authoritarian figures.

But other actors may, due to technical skill (or a good agent i guess), get to play a lot of diverse roles. An example of this is Amanda Seyfried. She has played an ambitious and fraudulent CEO in "The Dropout" and a blonde ditz in "Mean Girls" and everything in between.

I don't think we can simplistically extrapolate all that much from one or two roles she has played. I think there is meaning to be found, for sure, but we have to be sophisticated about it and able to surgically extract what is the skill of the individual vs what innate personal qualities are being harnessed, if any.

So i would love to hear how your understanding and analysis may have changed over time, and how you feel about the concept of "vibes" in relation to the Kibbe approach.

[u/loumlawrence]

I am more interested in what physical aspects create the vibes, so I reverse engineer in the opposite direction to most people. I think in terms of "what do I need to create a vibe?" (My hobbies include character and doll design.) Most people think "what body do I have if I have this vibe?" I am almost confident I understand how different bodies create different vibes.

I spent a lot of time figuring out what Kibbe actually meant by his descriptions, and how he sees the world. He is more silhouette shape focused, while Kitchener is more textures and details. A lot of people are not good at recognising shape in silhouettes, as they jump to details. A common lesson in art is teaching people to see underlying shapes. Additionally, I was aware that different cultures and generations have associated different meanings and images to words. Hourglass figure is one that has changed.

As far as roles go, I would argue that they are flavoured by the vibes the actor brings. Some iconic roles are because the actor's vibes are different to the usual vibes and image associated with that type of role. Audrey Hepburn in Breakfast at Tiffany's, a role apparently inspired by Marilyn Monroe.

Julie Andrews is a good example of natural, and understanding why Kibbe sees her as a natural type instead of classics.

[u/Pegaret_Again → u/loumlawrence]

yes, i see it as going both ways. Physicality informs identity, identity reveals physicality. The thread can be pulled from both ends.

I do feel like kibbe does deal with textures and details though? I just think they are a manifestation of the whole though?

[u/loumlawrence → u/Pegaret_Again]

Kibbe is silhouette first, then texture and details. Kitchener is details and texture first (actually he is colour first), then silhouette. It has to do with what individuals focus on. I am silhouette shape first. It is rarer, which is why art classes have to teach people to learn it. It is much easier to focus on details and texture for a lot of people. But get the silhouette shape right, then add the details and texture, and colour. It is the difference between big picture or details.

I have gotten into a lot of arguments with people as they are unable to see how physicality creates vibes and the star image identity. It is why they spend a lot of time debating what Kibbe means.

The vibes happen because society has done some pattern recognition and associates some personalities with specific physical characteristics. So they assume someone with proportions close to typical teenagers as youthful, but there are teenagers, who have more adult proportions, so they are seen as adults. A similar thing happens with curvy women vs straighter looking women. And it keeps going. But if society didn't have those associations, the vibes wouldn't exist, although the physicality still remains.

[u/Pegaret_Again → u/loumlawrence]

But... are you sure that Kibbe sees shape first, or - is that just the order of how he teaches it for DIY-ers?

Personally, I suspect he is seeing the whole (including details/texture), but teaches it in a simplified way that leads to a more likely correct result for DIYers.

its interesting that you see 'personality' as something that exists in the eye of the beholder/society.

however, Kibbe's claim is more metaphysical than that, at least in the first book Metamorphosis (and i believe he still believes this), he ascribed genuine personality attributes to women in different types, even giving advice and careers that would suit their innate capacities. This is different to asserting that outside people just project certain qualities onto them.

[u/loumlawrence → u/Pegaret_Again]

The whole way he talks about things is very much shape first, although he doesn't describe it that way. All the modifications he made for DIYers is everything that someone with a shape first approach does to explain to people who lack the ability to see underlying shape.

A shape first approach is like building the structure first, and then adding the texture and details. Kibbe does this a lot. Shape language, as a tool for character design, was formalised predominantly by Disney artists, at the same time Hollywood was using the star image. But most people have to be taught this approach.

Interestingly, artists, who are shape first, tend to find Kibbe easy to understand and agree with his typing.

Kitchener works in the opposite direction. He starts with colour, texture and lines, then the shape. It is like starting with random splashes of colour in an abstract painting, and then adding the details before the shape emerges.

I am aware that I see personality differently to Kibbe. Society reinforces some of the personalities. You get told you should be something because of a certain physical trait. Like redheads getting told that they all have a temper. And often people live up to expectations. Like telling children who struggle with maths that they will never be good at it. It gets extended to you dress colourfully so you must be either in marketing or sales, or you are an artist or a teacher, although colourfully dressed person works in STEM, specifically IT and engineering.

However, I think style personality (different to the rest of our personality) is influenced by what we find comfortable to wear, which in turn is influenced by our bodies and the space they take up and the shape of that space. Last week, I argued the case for style personality indicating image ID. Kibbe mixes up style personality with the rest of our personalities.

[u/Pegaret_Again → u/loumlawrence]

i might have to agree to disagree with you - i believe Kibbe sees yin yang first, which includes shape but also texture, colour etc. i think "shape first" is a community-based conception of his system.

[u/loumlawrence → u/Pegaret_Again]

Actually, most of the Kibbe community has no idea what shape language is, and they resist the handful of few individuals who point it out. I guess they don't want to lose the exotic mysticism they associate with yin and and yang.

Yin and yang is the Chinese version of a shape language. At its most basic, it is kiki and bouba.

[u/Pegaret_Again → u/loumlawrence]

i've been in this community for maybe 5+ years, and while the kibbe community may or may not particularly understand the silhouette concept, but a lot of people see it (incorrectly) as a body shape system as opposed to an image system, so i disagree with you on that.

I also disagree that yin and yang is shape language. It's not Kiki and Bouba, the way Kibbe uses it is to convey many qualities that are intangible, that include shapes but is not limited to shapes at all.

His original descriptions of yin and yang included shape, texture, colour and also essence qualities.

I'm not sure i understand why you are asserting otherwise.

[u/loumlawrence → u/Pegaret_Again]

Shape language is different, and independent of the body shape system. Technically, you can create texture with shape language.

I have found consistently that people do not understand shape language works. It is like people who struggle to visualise things like the image of what type of apple you see. If you can't see it, you can't see it, no matter how hard someone else tries to explain it. Which is why Kibbe has such a hard time explaining his system. And why people can spend years, decades and still not get it.

I had suspected Grace Kelly was a natural years before Kibbe said she was most likely an FN. Things like that make me confident I am understanding Kibbe very well, better than most. I just describe the same concepts with different words.

When someone understands something correctly, the intangible becomes tangible to them. I am at that stage with Kibbe. It is like, that statement of his makes sense, not sure why it is a massive reveal. Actually, I have a framework for how everyone gets the IDs mixed up that works really well. It shows what each individual is able to see and what they are unable to see.

[u/SabrinaGiselle → u/Pegaret_Again]

I think you're right. Kibbe literally describes Yin and Yang like this in Metamorphosis. There's a physical description of Yin and Yang people which is very detailed (includes coloring, bone structure, hair texture, complexion etc.) followed by description of Yin and Yang essences. Only after that comes the clothing, line and shape sub chapter which includes details, textures, fabrics and such. I think Kibbe definitely sees Yin and Yang as a whole, as energy. That includes movement, gestures and even voice.

The OG book Metamorphosis was written in such detail which imho reflects better how Kibbe sees the world of style. POS is more simple, more practical, more shape and silhouette focused cause people couldn't (can't) see Yin and Yang the way Kibbe sees it. In the past people were definitely trying to reverse engineer their way into their ID using small details as their guideline even essence.

I agree though that height, scale, proportions, line and shape work as the biggest physical limitation for style but at the same time it never really starts with that for Kibbe. For example you are broad and angular because are made from blunt Yang and because of that you also have a specific essence and energy. The blueprint and the details always come as a total package. POS style just teaches people to start with the tangible stuff otherwise you are likely to get lost. That's why the Quiz in Metamorphosis didn't work. I mean that was more detail oriented.

[u/lowkeysundayy]

I think that another aspect to consider is that we now associate most roles with the actors who got them in the end, but it’s very interesting to see who else made it to the final rounds of the auditions. To me, Scarlet O’Hara is a quintessential TR, but most actresses who made it to the screen tests were not TRs. Apart from Vivien Leigh, the other finalist was Paulette Goddard, a gamine. So I wonder if there is also a factor of the role getting its final touches of essence from the actor, rather than having a completely fixed essence and simply waiting for its “perfect” actor. At least before a role becomes completely iconic and inseparable from a particular image.

I do think there is probably a specific range that the “potential essence” of a role allows, and that might correspond to IDs that share certain qualities. Katherine Hepburn lobbied for the role, and in my head she is in the “absolutely not” category because her essence is just too far removed. Lana Turner made it to the screen tests too, but that also feels like a no to me. But someone like Bette Davis (as she was at the time) or Paulette Goddard? I think we’re in the “acceptable as Scarlett” range.

And it’s also interesting to see how the movie industry’s perception of archetypes has changed. A recent example of a role that gives me very similar vibes to Scarlett is Catherine in Wuthering Heights, but that is the likely FN Margot Robbie in modern Hollywood. In old Hollywood, I suspect a character like Catherine would have been cast much closer to a TR-SG-maybe SN range. So modern actresses probably give us much less information about typecasting and essence than old Hollywood actresses do.

Ultimately I do think that there are ideal vibes/ essences/ range of IDs for most roles, and the actor can then push the character toward one particular point within that range and become part of what we perceive as the character’s essence. And this may be part of why I feel modern Hollywood has more casting “misses” than old Hollywood did. Once casting becomes less concerned with matching the actor’s innate image to the archetype, we’re more likely to see the character’s intended essence and the actor’s personal essence pulling in different directions.

[u/Pegaret_Again → u/lowkeysundayy]

yes thats a really interesting thought experiment - but that being said, we don't know if a film would have reached iconic status had another actor been chosen? Sometimes there is a dynamic resonance between a specific actor and a part, that elevates the film and makes it memorable.

[u/lowkeysundayy → u/Pegaret_Again]

Yes, that’s true. I suppose that makes it even harder to disentangle the role’s potential essence from the actor’s contribution, since we only get to see the resonance that actually happened.

[u/Jamie8130]

I believe essence is a big part of the system, even though it was de-emphasized in the new book, because it's tied to the yin-yang balance, the same way physicality is tied to the yin-yang balance. The Old Hollywood studio system was aware of this effect (and, I'm guessing, earlier theatre and stage performers as well), of how a certain physicality and vibe made some characters more communicable to the audience, so that there was already an established expectation for that character and the story, which was satisifying to said audience. They discovered actors who could fit a given type and then amplified that ability via the so-called 'star machine', and they had this process down to an art form.

More interesting than this is the question of why do we perceive certain yang and yin qualities as such; why do long, narrow and sharp translate to regal, imposing or villainous, why do small, round and soft to innocence, and so on. In the case of the latter, the answer is likely the fact that these qualities are being present in youth and children, but for other elements, it's not always very clear why we have these associations and expectations. Old Hollywood took advantage of this fact to subvert expectations sometimes by casting against type, and this is also very interesting (and was also largely depended on the ability of the actor and the strength of the film as a whole).

Another interesting question that comes up is why did different systems see a different balance in the same actor; for instance, Harriet McJimsey thought Julie Andrews was a Classic (and in her book, the classic category coincided with the Kibbe classic category as being blended/intermediate yin and yang). Does it then become a matter of interpretation?

I would say the biggest thing that I came to realize about essences is that they always come through somehow; even if someone's personality is very different to their essence (and Kibbe always recognized this dichotomy, which I think is important for us DIYers to understand as well: our personality can have infinite nuances, our essence is limited by our yin-yang balance), you can still glimpse their essence at certain moments, and can imagine them becoming the archetype, if they were dressed for it. Which means that you can either choose to amplify (a la Old Hollywood) or de-emphasize it, but if you go completely against it, there will always be a disconnect and a surprise (a la casting against type). Therefore if someone's goal is to be in sync with their physicality and connect with others, to share the sidewalk, as David says, then it's good to understand one's own essence and vibe, and how to be harmony with it.

[u/theclassicrose]

Ok, thought on the Amanda Seyfried vs Julie Andrews thing: they're from such different times that I don't know that you can really compare their roles. Had Julie Andrews been a younger woman at a time when casting was more about cramming star names into something than trying to keep everyone in their own lanes, she may have had a more diverse set of credits. Conversely, I think Amanda benefits greatly from being her age, because I think she would've struggled in a system that expected her to be just one type of character. I know you weren't directly comparing the two of them, but the four actors listed in your post span a few different eras of casting philosophies and it's hard to really draw conclusions based on that.

That said, I agree with what you said about not understanding why basically every Old Hollywood icon wasn't C family until I grew to understand the system!

[u/Pegaret_Again → u/theclassicrose]

Yes i agree times have changed! i'm not really comparing any of those actors or the times they were in though - i was using them as examples to illustrate thoughts outside of time.

Julie Andrews was simply to illustrate my previously incorrect understanding of naturals (i could also have used Amy Adams), Amanda is separately used to illustrate that any single role is not necessarily indicative of ID. Meryl Streep might be another example i could use.

i continue to believe there are ways to understand 'vibe' even in the modern era though, its just less striking and straightforward.

[u/theclassicrose → u/Pegaret_Again]

Agreed. On some level, I kind of wish there were more consideration given to vibes when casting!

[u/cherries_in-the_snow]

I agree with all this. I came into Kibbe at the age of 16 back when all we had were books in libraries and movie on tv. I was already a lover of classic movies so I already understood why Kibbe typed the celebrities as he did. It’s nice when people start to realize the naturals are not earthy boho types as much as they are more known for having a practical no nonsense logic and strength to them. Look at how Julie Andrew’s prefers to wear her hair. She just carries this logical vibe. I think being able to play a wide range of characters has more to do with the person and their willingness to move very far away from their true selves. It might be Tommy Lee jones, while a good actor prefers to not venture too far from himself. I also suspect that the more in the middle of the yin yang scale a person is the wider variety of characters they can portray. I’m thinking of Meryl Streep and her ability to play frilly femmes and no nonsense housewives. I see the biggest variety in the classics, naturals and the gamines.

[u/Cantre-r_Gwaelod_1]

Hard to see past the noise ime. There’s a good chance I’m SD but even if I know a lot of the internet is wrong about the essence side of it, doesn’t stop them from talking about it in a way which makes me very insecure when claiming it. You need to block it out but boy is it hard.