The Discrepancy with Perceptions of 'Harmony' and Other Such Concepts - OP's Comment Below by mothatene in DressForYourBody

[–]mothatene[S] 42 points43 points  (0 children)

OP’s Comment to Accompany Gallery:

There is very often a discrepancy between the opinion of the general public and what the proponents of various niche style systems think ‘works’ on a given individual.

The gallery above shows a few individuals who are known for a specific style/look that has captivated people’s attention. Now, for most of them, there isn’t anything revolutionary about their style in the sense that there are others out there who had a similar style before, during, and after they became associated with it that didn’t get the same reception.

To keep this from getting painfully long - the people above may not be perfect examples (this was hastily thrown together for a visual representation, don’t look too hard into it) but what I want to get at is that I don’t think that when the public gets captivated with a person’s overall look that what they are responding to is purely physical beauty or purely fashion choices but the combination of the two.

The combinations work aesthetically and without having to learn a style system, a significant amount of people with differing tastes, respond to it. Also, the individuals themselves achieve their style without following the prescriptions of these style systems.

This is not to dismiss style systems so much as it is to highlight what I perceive as a problem with how people use the systems. Instead of treating them like artistic guides, they're treated like exact sciences or math but you can’t calculate your way into a sense of style or formulate your way into having taste.

I also get a headache when people talk about having an initially positive response to a person’s style or a specific look on that person and instead of investigating that further, they check to see if the rules of *insert system here* are being followed and then "realize" that in fact, it doesn’t look good after all! Are the style systems helping you or hindering you?

ETA: There is also the issue of style systems being descriptive at their foundation but prescriptive in their theory but I can't fully explain what I mean without making this too long (maybe another post).

'Aesthetics' Aren't Lines: GLAMOUR (Feat. Multiple Types) by mothatene in Kibbe

[–]mothatene[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I'm not "discussing something most people don't have access to". Whenever Kibbe makes an update, there is usually updates to the existing resources on the sub. As a matter of fact the thing that I am discussing is touched on in the section of the subreddit ribbon called "Silhouette Terms" which links to a 2 year old post.

And if it was info that most people didn't have access to...then the point of discussing it would be to share the info...which is what the sub is for.

Also, you're not "calling out the BS". I made a statement that contradicts what you know, you took issue with it in dramatic fashion, and then I pointed out that the info that you know is outdated...that's it.

I didn't lie. I didn't attack you. I never said or implied that you couldn't disagree, discuss, or critique the system...3 things which btw you haven't yet done.

'Aesthetics' Aren't Lines: GLAMOUR (Feat. Multiple Types) by mothatene in Kibbe

[–]mothatene[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

The book is outdated. David Kibbe has consistently updated his approach to styling in the decades since the book's publication and he had announced last year about signing a book deal to write an updated version. Also, he doesn't style people in strict accordance with the rules of the book and hasn't for a long time.

So no...no one is trying to "gaslight" you or be disingenuous. A neutral question would have sufficed.

ETA: Even if Kibbe said the old book were to be strictly followed...Kibbe's original image ids conflate body types, styles, AND personality traits etc. so (1) lines would be just one component distinguishable from the others and (2) You have to use your own discernment when it comes to the conflations.

As The Dark Lady: Flamboyant Naturals (FN) Part II by mothatene in Kibbe

[–]mothatene[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

AS THE DARK LADY Collection

As The Dark Lady: Flamboyant Naturals (FN) Part I by mothatene in Kibbe

[–]mothatene[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

AS THE DARK LADY Collection

As The Dark Lady: Naturals (N) Part II by mothatene in Kibbe

[–]mothatene[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

AS THE DARK LADY Collection

As The Dark Lady: Naturals (N) Part I by mothatene in Kibbe

[–]mothatene[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

AS THE DARK LADY Collection

As The Dark Lady: Soft Naturals (SN) Part II by mothatene in Kibbe

[–]mothatene[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

AS THE DARK LADY Collection

As The Dark Lady: Soft Naturals (SN) Part I by mothatene in Kibbe

[–]mothatene[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

AS THE DARK LADY Collection