Michael and Kibbe typology

[turtleneck_sweater]

I don't know how many of you are interested in fashion, and in Kibbe in particular. He is an image consultant. Personally, I like his system of classification. It is a great alternative to the outdated "women should wear things that make their waist look small" and "men should accentuate their secondary sex characteristics". It helped me be more body positive towards my own body and realize why some clothing, accessories, and hairstyles work better for me. It's actually the opposite of "if you're an apple, hide your torso and pretend you're an hourglass". It is about dressing in accordance with your lines and vibe.

You can check your type here if you're interested: https://www.kibbebodytypes.com/quiz/
There are lots of fun videos on YouTube which analyse style icons and show how different outfits work on different types.

So, the stylist who came up with the system actually classified Michael as Romantic. Like Elizabeth Taylor, Madonna, Marilyn Monroe, Johnny Depp, Elvis Presley. All of them are icons, that's their common denominator, but I wouldn't put Michael in their category!
Romantic bodies have a delicate, small bone structure, round shoulders, small hands and feet, lush hair, full lips, short height and large eyes. I do not really agree with that!

The features of a different type is what I see in Michael: pretty long vertical line (legs, arms), delicately defined muscles, moderate height, large eyes, thick curly hair, moderate lips, contrasting features, narrowness, and flamboyance. So that would be Flamboyant Gamine. Verified celebrities with this type include Audrey Hepburn, Liza Minelli, James Dean, Mick Jagger, Pharell. That's also my type.

FGs look great in angular detail, defined shoulders, geometric necklines, sharp geometric accessories, bold colours, and breaking up the line (colour blocking, contrasting traditionally masculine elements with traditionally feminine elements, cause that's what this type would be - a mixture of masculine and feminine features with slight dominance of the Yang).

I would say I agree with those tips when I look at Michael's outfits! If they're monochromatic, they need to have colour accents, like the red on the side of the leg and the belt and the armband (I know it is more than just a fashion statement). And YES, I know I post this outfit all the time but I love fashion, I appreciate his choices and I just think it's one of his best.

The Bad tour outfit (again, wouldn't be myself) with the asymmetrical belt works for many reasons. The belt, the colour contrast, the bold details, and pretty high neckline. Isn't it just made for his body?

Another example - whenever he wore a bold red (or other solid colours) on top and black pants that were short enough to show a bit of ankle. He chose it as his everyday uniform because he noticed how great it looks! I couldn't actually find one with shorter pants on the spot but I believe they worked best.

AND THE THRILLER OUTFIT! Look at the bold black ornament (sorry if I lack vocabulary, not my first language!). FGs should not wear a top and a bottom in the same style AND colour but here, I can see that the style is contrasted. Pretty conservative silhouette of jeans and the leather material of the big jacket. This is contrast. This works. And the socks! They add A LOT! I noticed that with myself, too. Black loafers + white socks always transform my looks.

This is another great example of the tips working for him! The bold jacket that most people wouldn't pull off. But he definitely does! Shorter pants, white socks, and asymmetry (A SINGLE GLOVE INSTEAD OF TWO!) are what make him look just amazing.

This body type also pulls off playful, colorful clothing. Regardless of age, gamines look very youthful so they shouldn't "dress their age", whatever that means:

FGs look great in short hair or short strands of hair (the curls...) on their face, with bangs, with those "youthful" hairstyles. So they look better with lightweight, fluffy curls or shags than in very long and very sleek hair. I just know I would look nice with short hair but I just can't imagine cutting my butt-length hair so I wear it up most of the time. Anyway, I do agree that if Michael's hair looks more messy, lightweight, playful and fluffy, he looks his best. And trust me, I am an expert in the hair department (in many different ways! Lmao).

FG makeup should make the eyes the focal point. Big YES to that! We all know how gorgeous he looks in thick eyeliner. FGs usually look best in more natural lip shades but sometimes bold red works, too. I would say this is an accurate description of makeup that suits Michael the most.

I wish I had time to add more examples! I might do it later. Anyway, I don't know if anyone's going to be interested in this but this is just my small analysis. Can you see what I'm seeing?
Tagging @DarylJoel_B and @zinniabooklover cause they might be interested in reading my scribble.

 

[DarylJoel_B]

YOOOOO i took that quiz and here's what i got:

37.5 for Flamboyant Gamine
50 for Soft Gamine
(50 is the highest score, i think)

then i read this back and learned michael is flamboyant gamine (i'm taking your word on this, Maria...)....
ME: *ULTIMATE TRANS JOY*

 

[zinniabooklover]

TLDR - for now, at least. I galloped through most of it very, very quickly but I'll try to come back to it. But my initial reaction is, hm, not sure. This is the type of thing that has me going both ways. Sounds dead interesting but also sounds too over-analytical and makes me think of academics who want to turn every normal (whatever that is!) thing into jargon-heavy theory.

That said, you did push one of my buttons, lol. I think we already talked about this so you won't be surprised to hear that I'm not really into the sock theory. His white socks in Thriller look awesome, precisely bc his skinny jeans are normal length and so you only get glimpses of them. Plus, it's dark so they really stand out. Whenever he wears skinny jeans the socks look great. When he wears shorter pants - DWT, for example - I don't think they work particularly well. For me, I'm seeing TOO much of the white socks. I know he does that to help people see his footwork in the live shows. Tbh, I'm not convinced by that but, putting that aside, just from an aesthetic point of view, the short pants / white socks thing doesn't work for me. The 1984 Grammys outfit, where we can see his socks in that photo where he's sitting down, for me that's too much sock, lol. He looks fabulous all the way down to his ankles and then it doesn't work, imo.

Tagging @DarylJoel_B and @zinniabooklover cause they might be interested in reading my scribble.

Sort of yes but also not sure, lol.

I don't know how many of you are interested in fashion

I am, sort of. Putting aside the politics of skinny bodies and the sexism in the fashion industry, yes, I do love to look at fashion photography even if I don't always like the clothes. I like the theatrical melodrama of high fashion even when the outfits are completely bonkers.

So, the stylist who came up with the system actually classified Michael as Romantic. Like Elizabeth Taylor, Madonna, Marilyn Monroe, Johnny Depp, Elvis Presley. All of them are icons, that's their common denominator, but I wouldn't put Michael in their category!

I wouldn't put any of those people in the same category as any of them, iyswim. They all have different body types. Madonna is short but her physique is totally different to Michael's, for example. Totally different to Elvis, for that matter. I'm not seeing the connection. Nor do I see any commonality in the personal style of any of these people. Full disclosure, I haven't read any of the stuff about this so am just going on my gut reaction based on what you've written here.

Romantic bodies have a delicate, small bone structure, round shoulders, small hands and feet, lush hair, full lips, short height and large eyes. I do not really agree with that!

Me neither. It's way too reductive.

I would say I agree with those tips when I look at Michael's outfits! If they're monochromatic, they need to have colour accents, like the red on the side of the leg and the belt and the armband (I know it is more than just a fashion statement). And YES, I know I post this outfit all the time but I love fashion, I appreciate his choices and I just think it's one of his best.

See, I'm just not sure about this. Colour accents are fab and sometimes are just what an outfit needs. But it depends. The red accents in his White House visit outfit, yes, that is perfect. But so is his all-black WMA 2006 outfit. The colour blocking (to use a fashion industry term, lol) when he wears black pants and a colourful shirt - yeah, that always looks awesome. But he looks just as good with a colourful shirt, black pants and a white t-shirt. So I'm not sure how far the theory really gets us.

I think part of my difficulty is I'm naturally wary of consultants of any kind. They always seem to be people who have sort of invented a job for themselves and have managed to persuade people to pay them huge amounts of money to do stuff that mostly boils down to common sense, imo. I can see the role of a stylist on a photo shoot, for example. I'm not sure I can see what the role of an image consultant is.

I'll try to read your post again and think about this some more.

 

[turtleneck_sweater]

then i read this back and learned michael is flamboyant gamine (i'm taking your word on this, Maria...)....
ME: *ULTIMATE TRANS JOY*

Don't quote me on that! It's just my assumption! The gif

 

[turtleneck_sweater]

sounds too over-analytical and makes me think of academics who want to turn every normal (whatever that is!) thing into jargon-heavy theory.

You just described me I often catch myself doing that. But as much as I love my down-to-earth, not-overcomplicating-life side, I also enjoy my moments of over-analysis of topics that interest me.

I think part of my difficulty is I'm naturally wary of consultants of any kind. They always seem to be people who have sort of invented a job for themselves and have managed to persuade people to pay them huge amounts of money to do stuff that mostly boils down to common sense, imo. I can see the role of a stylist on a photo shoot, for example. I'm not sure I can see what the role of an image consultant is.

Imo it's often the case but not always. Too busy to explain now.

I am, sort of. Putting aside the politics of skinny bodies and the sexism in the fashion industry, yes, I do love to look at fashion photography even if I don't always like the clothes. I like the theatrical melodrama of high fashion even when the outfits are completely bonkers.

You just named everything I hate about the fashion industry. I'm interested in the cultural significance, the art, the self-expression, the societal aspect of fashion, and fashion history.

This is why I decided to tag you. I always appreciate your comments and insights. Or you just saying "it's bs".

 

[zinniabooklover]

You just named everything I hate about the fashion industry. I'm interested in the cultural significance, the art, the self-expression, the societal aspect of fashion, and fashion history.

Exactly so. What I like most about fashion photography is the actual photography. It almost isn't even about the clothes. That said, I do love looking at how the models are posing. I think people think it's easy but I'm sure it's not. I think it's a real skill and not everyone has it. An actor, for example, doesn't automatically have the skill that a model has.

I also love the styling of the shoot and the composition of the pictures. As for the clothes, it's more about the fabric design but also textures, the way things drape and hang, the weight of clothes etc.

I do sometimes worry about the (female) models. The things they are asked to do. One of my all time fave fashion shoots - September Vogue, not sure what year, 2 decades ago? - and Lily Cole was the model. Awesome shots. One involved her up on a really high mantelpiece, another one she was on the roof, one was on a spiral staircase. Not sure how safe she was but, can't deny, the shots looked fan-freakin'-tastic! I can still see that whole shoot in my mind's eye all these years later.

This is why I decided to tag you. I always appreciate your comments and insights. Or you just saying "it's bs".

Trouble is, you tag me and this is what you get in return, lol. Me posting a photo of Lily Cole from that photo shoot.

 

[zinniabooklover]

Apologies, @turtleneck_sweater

Can't think where else to post these. Can't use Fashion in Music bc Lily Cole isn't a musician. So I'm posting them here, at least for now. Sorry for derailing!

 

[zinniabooklover]

And again.

Lily is not standing on a mantelpiece. She's on top of a display cabinet. So much safer (not!).

 

[zinniabooklover]

Last one, I promise. If anyone can think of a better place for me to put these I'm happy to move them.

 

[Dircorea]

TLDR - for now, at least. I galloped through most of it very, very quickly but I'll try to come back to it. But my initial reaction is, hm, not sure. This is the type of thing that has me going both ways. Sounds dead interesting but also sounds too over-analytical and makes me think of academics who want to turn every normal (whatever that is!) thing into jargon-heavy theory.

That said, you did push one of my buttons, lol. I think we already talked about this so you won't be surprised to hear that I'm not really into the sock theory. His white socks in Thriller look awesome, precisely bc his skinny jeans are normal length and so you only get glimpses of them. Plus, it's dark so they really stand out. Whenever he wears skinny jeans the socks look great. When he wears shorter pants - DWT, for example - I don't think they work particularly well. For me, I'm seeing TOO much of the white socks. I know he does that to help people see his footwork in the live shows. Tbh, I'm not convinced by that but, putting that aside, just from an aesthetic point of view, the short pants / white socks thing doesn't work for me. The 1984 Grammys outfit, where we can see his socks in that photo where he's sitting down, for me that's too much sock, lol. He looks fabulous all the way down to his ankles and then it doesn't work, imo.


Sort of yes but also not sure, lol.


I am, sort of. Putting aside the politics of skinny bodies and the sexism in the fashion industry, yes, I do love to look at fashion photography even if I don't always like the clothes. I like the theatrical melodrama of high fashion even when the outfits are completely bonkers.


I wouldn't put any of those people in the same category as any of them, iyswim. They all have different body types. Madonna is short but her physique is totally different to Michael's, for example. Totally different to Elvis, for that matter. I'm not seeing the connection. Nor do I see any commonality in the personal style of any of these people. Full disclosure, I haven't read any of the stuff about this so am just going on my gut reaction based on what you've written here.


Me neither. It's way too reductive.


See, I'm just not sure about this. Colour accents are fab and sometimes are just what an outfit needs. But it depends. The red accents in his White House visit outfit, yes, that is perfect. But so is his all-black WMA 2006 outfit. The colour blocking (to use a fashion industry term, lol) when he wears black pants and a colourful shirt - yeah, that always looks awesome. But he looks just as good with a colourful shirt, black pants and a white t-shirt. So I'm not sure how far the theory really gets us.

I think part of my difficulty is I'm naturally wary of consultants of any kind. They always seem to be people who have sort of invented a job for themselves and have managed to persuade people to pay them huge amounts of money to do stuff that mostly boils down to common sense, imo. I can see the role of a stylist on a photo shoot, for example. I'm not sure I can see what the role of an image consultant is.

I'll try to read your post again and think about this some more.

It's not that complicated. There are body types, essences, and seasonal colors. You dress for your body type first, then your essence, then your seasonal colors. Michael was and always has been textbook gamine in terms of body type. His essence, however, has always been romantic. That's where people are getting confused--Kibbe's nitpicky height requirements for women, and his loose essence/style classifications for men. If you pay attention to the archetypes he uses for men, heights vary greatly. You can easily compare the frame of people like Michael and Pharrell to people like Bruno if you scale one up or down to match height-wise and know they have the same body-type. However, they give off completely different vibes.

 

[zinniabooklover]

It's not that complicated.

Um, I don't think I was saying it was complicated, just quite boring! I did go back and look at it again and it didn't really land with me. Just not my sort of thing and definitely too jargon-y for me. Academic jargon (or any type of jargon) is easy enough to understand most of the time but I never enjoy it.

There are body types, essences, and seasonal colors. You dress for your body type first, then your essence, then your seasonal colors. Michael was and always has been textbook gamine in terms of body type. His essence, however, has always been romantic. That's where people are getting confused--Kibbe's nitpicky height requirements for women, and his loose essence/style classifications for men. If you pay attention to the archetypes he uses for men, heights vary greatly. You can easily compare the frame of people like Michael and Pharrell to people like Bruno if you scale one up or down to match height-wise and know they have the same body-type. However, they give off completely different vibes.

I understand all of this and I can (sort of) see why people would find it interesting but it just isn't for me. It's not the kind of thing I'd be thinking of if I'm looking at a photo or video of Michael.

That said, I love the fact that there are so many ways to think about Michael. The many, varied, creative ways people can think about him or explore what he means to them or whatever - that I do love.

 

[zinniabooklover]

I don't know how many of you are interested in fashion, and in Kibbe in particular. He is an image consultant. Personally, I like his system of classification. It is a great alternative to the outdated "women should wear things that make their waist look small" and "men should accentuate their secondary sex characteristics". It helped me be more body positive towards my own body and realize why some clothing, accessories, and hairstyles work better for me. It's actually the opposite of "if you're an apple, hide your torso and pretend you're an hourglass". It is about dressing in accordance with your lines and vibe.

I did go back and look at this but I am still very lukewarm about it. I enjoyed reading your thoughts on all of this but the Kibbe theory itself just wasn't that gripping for me. That said, anything that gets this kind of conversation going, that encourages people to be more independent and individual in how they put together their own style can't be all that bad.

For myself, I just want to talk about the fabric of Michael's clothes. I'm not a dressmaker or a textile designer or anything like that but, ngl, I am slightly obsessed with the fabric of his garments. So luxurious, so beautiful, so tactile. And the way the fabric moves ...

 

[Dircorea]

Um, I don't think I was saying it was complicated, just quite boring! I did go back and look at it again and it didn't really land with me. Just not my sort of thing and definitely too jargon-y for me. Academic jargon (or any type of jargon) is easy enough to understand most of the time but I never enjoy it.


I understand all of this and I can (sort of) see why people would find it interesting but it just isn't for me. It's not the kind of thing I'd be thinking of if I'm looking at a photo or video of Michael.

That said, I love the fact that there are so many ways to think about Michael. The many, varied, creative ways people can think about him or explore what he means to them or whatever - that I do love.

I wasn't referring to you specifically. Just people in general when it comes to this typing. It's overcomplicated because people lean too heavily on one system or another instead of looking at the whole picture.

 

[zinniabooklover]

I wasn't referring to you specifically. Just people in general when it comes to this typing. It's overcomplicated

I don't think it's complicated but, then again, I did describe it as over-analytical so perhaps I'm just getting lost in the semantics, lol.

 

[wendijane]

Great thread
Yes