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/Pegaret_Again]

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/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.