u/Jamie8130

I was re-listening to one of David's interviews, I often go back to them because I love his philosophy and the way he talks about personal style, and each time I discover something different. This time a couple of questions propped up regarding some of the things he mentioned. One of them was how we have to always relate style back to our personal situation, dreams, life aspirations, and so on. He said (here, around the 19:57 mark):

"Dreamboards are not like visionboards or moodboards, those are different ideas. Dreams connect you with your soul, mood , vision... they are wonderful things, but they're different. Dreams are where aspirations are, and they will tell you what your heart is longing for in ways that you haven't even admitted to yourself yet. Start there. But then it has to come through the template that you've been blessed with, you know, your body in a lot of spiritual practices is a temple, so your body is a template and a temple. It is the vessel you've been blessed with and you're a painting and you're a sculpture. So understand that, because if you don't understand, you're not really working with yourself."

Later on he is talking about how each person's version of an ID is like countries within a continent, it can be completely different. I really liked both ideas, because there's a lot of truth to them, and because they give us a lot of freedom within our respective IDs. But this made me think of something other members have talked about here in the sub as well, particularly u/TiredWinterDisaster, which is basically why then have ID essence descriptions at all? Why did he add 'Deco Dynamo' to Dramatics for instance? I understand that Dramatics have a silhouette and yin/yang balance that can communicate a very clear depiction of 'deco dynamo' (and this is useful for character building in a film), but if IDs are indeed varied as they relate to individuals (due to their dreams/aspirations/life situations being varied), then why add that essence description? Why not have a couple examples instead, like: "Here is a 5'10 dramatic who feels like a deco dynamo, and here is a 5'6 Dramatic who likes the otherwordly look of elves, they both share vertical, narrow and sharp yang, here are ways ideas how they can achieve their desired style''.

Which brings me to me to the second thing that came up: in this interview and in others, he emphasizes the importance of technique being the thing that gives you the freedom to achieve what you want within the context of your template. Is knowledge of the accommodations, and the short silhouette descriptions in the IDs enough for the average person to acquire a basic technique? I understand that fabrics changed since Metamorphosis, but I still think that approach was more useful to finding out what kind of construction elements in garments lend themselves to different silhouette considerations.

Metamorphosis had a hyperspecific prescriptive approach and POS has a more interpretive approach, but I still think the average DIYer might be better helped by something in the middle. Because he is right, we do need to have technique, and when I think about it, people who have signature p[personal styles, have all the elements that he talks about in common: knowing what they want to communicate about themselves with their style, and knowing how to dress their specific proportions and features. I think having ID essence descriptions messes with the former, and not expanding on technique in the new book messes with the latter.

I was browsing some old Hollywood movies the other day and happened upon one with Joanne Woodward and remembered that she is verified as SN by Kibbe, so I went looking for some of her pictures. The more photos I saw the more something became very evident: how at ease she looked, how comfortable in her skin, and how free in her movements. She is a beautiful woman and looked amazing in many different styles and outfits, but what was the common point was that she looked comfortable in her skin in every one, be it a gown or a casual look. This has to do with personality, life factors, and so on, but I wondered if some part of it was also because she leaned into her type with her styling, hence why the total effect seemed so congruent, unpretentious, and fun. Of course it was also the specific poses from the photos and the fact in most of them she was with her long-time husband Paul Newman, but somehow you could tell this was how she'd be IRL (or I guess that's the power of the studio type casting system :)). I think one interpretation of sensual, in the ''fresh and sensual'' moniker that Kibbe used for SN, is this element: being comfortable with yourself, the fact that in the way she seemed to always be connected to her body. I'm not sure I'm describing this very coherently, but if you browse her photos I think it definitely comes through. And I think it's because even in her real life she leaned into the archetype (some old Hollywood stars didn't necessarily lean into their type in their personal style), that's why she always seemed to look so authentic. I thought that was very interesting from a Kibbe PoV, and I also just loved looking at her photos, there was a calm assuredness blended with a fun exuberance that I found very appealing!