Most of us have an understanding of our body proportions; how these align with our personal ideals and how different clothing styles can flatter us, often skilfully concealing what we perceive as 'out of proportion.' We are aware of which parts of our bodies to emphasise and which to downplay, helping us avoid drawing attention to any disproportionate areas, with varying degrees of success.
Numerous body type enthusiasts are familiar with David Kibbe's body type system from his 1987 book 'Metamorphosis' and have tried to determine their own 'type.' Many, myself included, have explored the Kibbe system in depth, examining various possibilities and convincing themselves they have identified their best fit type or perhaps they have given up, feeling perplexed by the ambiguous results.
Around 2016, I discovered Dwyn Larson's website '20 Types of Beauty,' later renamed 'All Types of Beauty.' Larson expanded the Kibbe types in a way I found interesting, logical and straightforward. The system is beautifully simple, yet the types can mix in almost endless combinations of features and body shapes. I corresponded with Dwyn about her system, who asked me to help edit her style guides for the types, which I did. She also determined my type.
Over time, after examining both Kibbe and Larson's systems and exploring several other systems, I wanted to implement a more objective and systematic approach to the analysis, if possible. By meticulously distributing percentage points between face and body and between bone structure and facial and body features, I classified as many individuals as possible to experiment with and create a methodology that was both consistent and precise. I differ slightly from Kibbe and Larson's approaches in the following ways:
I believe David Kibbe now focuses almost solely on body type and shape, rather than facial bone structure and features in his typing. However, in working on myself and with clients, I've found that our overall style aligns better with our physical appearance if it reflects the bone structure and features of our faces, particularly. Because of this realisation, I now use the results of the face analysis to provide an overall 'Style ID.' This style result guides the artistry of our dress: hair, makeup, jewellery and accessories as well as the 'inside' styling lines of our outfits.
I now separate out your 'Body ID' from your 'Style ID.' In many cases the two are strongly correlated and often the same. However, some people's 'Style ID' is slightly different from the 'Body ID.' For example, one client's 'Style ID' is Classic-Romantic ('Elegant') but their 'Body ID' is Romantic ('Feminine'). The clothing shapes need to be primarily feminine and rounded, but the finish of the clothing, accessories, make-up and hairstyles need to be elegant and slightly rounded. This will suit the client perfectly. In contrast, if the client is styled as a Romantic only, due to her body type, the styling effects will be too 'fussy' looking for her face and she will not be able to radiate her natural elegance through her style.
Sometimes a client will have a 'Style ID' that does not seem to correlate with the 'Body ID.' For example, a client may have a 'Style ID' of Dramatic-Gamine. As Dramatic is the tallest type and Gamine the smallest, there could be multiple ways these two types could combine. For example, the combination could create a Natural ('Athletic') looking body. Typically natural-looking styling techniques will not enhance the client's beauty, but the clothing will need to contain lines that are relaxed; structured, yet soft-edged; chunky; open-necked etc. with Dramatic-Gamine styling effects, accessories and 'inside' design lines. Without these effects, the client will lose the sophistication and playfulness in her appearance, which is the hallmark of her particular beauty.
This explains in part, why I don't use the concept of Kitchener's 'Essences' (which Kitchener attributes mostly to the face) in my styling. 'Essences' plus 'Kibbe body type' is roughly similar to my 'Style ID' plus 'Body ID,' but my analysis is as objective as possible, rather than intuitive. Points are awarded for different features, calculated and double-checked against templates and I do not take into consideration my own or the client's subjective interpretation of these features.
Combined with our physical selves, we are also emotional, rational, spiritual and psychological beings. A dominantly intuitive person may relate strongly to the idea of 'Ethereal,' but this manifestation through style can take different forms. It seems that by accepting too readily what 'Ethereal' looks like, we deny ourselves the rich exploration of what our bodies and personalities are trying to communicate. For example, one of the attributes of 'Ethereal' can be described as a 'far-away' look. I have only seen this displayed by individuals dominant or secondary dominant in Introverted Intuition. As the person switches to using this part of the brain, the eyes move away from the onlooker and appear 'out of focus.' All the personalities and archetypes are fascinating, unique and beautiful and can be expressed through style. For more information on style and psychology, please read https://www.stylemap.com/article or book a Psychological Style Analysis.
In addition, there are at least two different viewpoints on personal styling for bodies. One focuses on correcting imbalances to achieve a perfectly balanced or hourglass figure. Stylists who use this method tend to create looks that help clients feel less self-conscious about perceived body flaws, but they might not align their styling techniques with the client's overall 'look.' This approach, which centres on 'fixing a problem,' can help reduce self-consciousness about body image and clothing, but it doesn't necessarily showcase the client's unique beauty. However, using precise measurements provided by the client, I identify both vertical and horizontal body shapes and provide a checklist of styling techniques that can visually minimise or accentuate certain features. This can be used if the client feels they look 'out of proportion' or if they want to create a 'visual balance,' using their own 'Style ID' and 'Body ID' guidelines, rather than another ID's guidelines, which may distract from the overall look of an outfit.
Alternatively, David Kibbe's philosophy of style suggests that we are beautiful in our unique way and can use the recommendations of our style type to showcase or exaggerate these lines, regardless of whether the resulting look fits conventional or notional stereotypes of beauty. More flexibly, Carla Mason Mathis and Helen Villa Connor, in their book, 'Timeless Beauty' (1993), shows techniques for both exaggerating or downplaying different body types to create a desired effect and that over the decades and centuries, many different body shapes have been considered desirable and fashionable. For some examples, please read my article: Â https://www.stylemap.com/article/style-refections-i-body-shapes-in-fashion