The old school apple, pear, inverted triangle, rectangle which you have most likely been exposed to is a dated typology. The concept can be traced back to the 50s, a time when everyone was trying to look hourglass.
The “fruit shape” approach tries to correct the figure to make it suit that “ideal” type. For example, to make the bust look bigger or smaller, to look leaner, shapelier, and so on to fit the “perfect” type.
Categorising bodies as shapes makes it seem as if everyone has something to correct. Tall? You should look shorter. Slim hips? You should try to look curvier. Big bosom? Hide it. Small bosom? Enhance it.
They can serve as a general guide if you do have features you would like to accentuate. For example, if you are conscious of having a small bust and would like to look shapelier, you might wear clothing with some ruffles and flounce in the chest area to accentuate the bosom.
On the other hand, these categories can feel very limiting. Staying true to your “type” can make you feel like you can never wear specific type of clothing. If you look at standard advice for these types, they might not suit your personal type or style at all.
Also what about things like print, fabric weight, fabric type of item…? All these things add to the general look of your oufit. Stripes make you taller and black slimmer? Sure, but what about everything else?
David Kibbe’s body ID system appeared in the 1980s providing an alternative approach. Kibbe’s “types” are intended as a key to enhancing your natural features and “essence” rather than trying to hide them.
The idea is not to give you a capsule wardrobe. The focus is not on individual items. Rather, the aim is to find the type of shapes that enhance your figure and look “right” on you. Everyone has had pieces in their wardrobe that they like, but feel don’t really suit them.
We can use such systems as guidelines for building a style that works with our specific bone structure, height, and essence.
More on Kibbe Body IDs in the next post.
Raw Rebellion 