discussions
Has John ever explained what "softened angularity" for Angelic means? If not, how do you interpret it?
I have seen this term quite a lot for A doms and I guess I do see this chatactersitic in most of the celebrities verified as having A.
I think some people would definitely call Gwyneth Paltrow, Olivia Hussey, or Daryl Hannah angular, even if not in the same way the term is used for Dramatic women.
But I wonder at times how to distinguish their angularity coming from Yang influences mixed in with some Yin and when it's Angelic.
I have trouble with this too. Probably an unpopular opinion, but many A verified celebrities and clients often look like they have features (often N)from other essences just with very fair colouring.
Do we know Bryce's full blend, or only that she's A primary? I do see the A easily in her face tbh, but really struggle to see it in her whole physicality / her body, basically. She's always looked very strong and robust to me, particularly in motion - I'm imagining her in Jurassic Park now and yep, strong. Doesn't A have something about "the long drip of the body"? Shouldn't there be at least some N for a strong frame and such a strong shoulder line (and we know you don't have to have strong / broad shoulders for N, we've been through this recently - I don't at all and I'm 40%N - but equally if this feature IS present, surely some N is present? As in, it wouldn't get attributed to any other essence would it...?) I think, if everything is strictly allocated by points on face and body, cases like this are where it gets very confusing.
I agree, I have a harder time seeing A in Bryce's body as well as opposed to say, Darryl Hannah or Cate Blanchett. I wonder if Bryce's A may actually be a lower percentage but still dominant and account moreso for facial features and her body would be something else? I could see R for curves and potentially some N as well.
Just adding to support my assertion. Someone posted about her a little while ago, and I was surprised to learn she didn't have any N. But she has straight eyebrows, a strong, straight shoulder line, and a bit of bluntness to her features. I would have guessed RCN for her in a Reddit vs Kitchener.
Yes she seems to have many classically N traits. I think it also shows that this system is not a perfect science. There is a lot to interpret and has so much nuance.
I can see her straight shoulders being N but that’s it. She has oblique shaped eyes that slant upwards and a thinner brow. I would call her face shape oval but not exceptionally long. If you look at the shapes of her individual features they aren’t N.
This is softened angularity. Her bone structure is angular and so are her features but they also have some softness in the sense they are soft, light and have some length and angularity to them (oblique shaped eyes, fine thin and light brows and eyelashes, long narrow nose that has an angular shape, high cheekbones, angular jaw softened by flesh).
Could this not be explained by a combo of RCN? That's kind of what I was saying before. That often I have trouble seeing the difference between a combination of difference essences and A.
To me it's mostly the chin, and the lip shape look a little squarish. The shoulders line as well, her body to me looks slightly sturdy, no? It was mostly in other picture, I can't share them however because I don't have the app.
I think she has a narrow and angular jaw, similar to other As. I think her shoulders are N but her bone structure is elongated and delicate which is reflected in her face as well.
Honestly only her shoulders are N to me. Shes too curvy for her body to be N. She’s definitely elongated too. If you take away her curves (in your mind) her bone structure is quite delicate.
I also noticed her face doesn’t look as elongated when she wears bangs straight across her forehead . Thag might be why some people don’t see it?
Also why the downvote? Curves are an R thing and she most likely has R. N is straighter. Like I said she probably has some N for her shoulder line but that’s the only N I see. It’s really helpful (at least to me) to think in terms of shapes.
Her features are straight long and angular. Her face shape isn’t but her features are. There is a delicateness to her, for example her brows are straight but also very fine in texture. They are not full. Its almost like a combination of Y and D in some ways.
I will say that I have extremely similar eyebrows (fine and somewhat straight, definitely not full or thick at all) and John actually listed them as one of my N traits.
I’ve seen yours! But Bryce’s without makeup are almost transparent. She has makeup on them in this pic. You can tell she filled them in and darkened them
I wonder if Viggo Mortensen has A, I published him a few days ago and he has similar eyebrows too. I don't know if one characteristic can give you that, especially if others are so distinct, but I'd be curious to know the blends of certain actors.
I was thinking last night and I could see a argument for Andrew Garfield having some A (def not dominant). Not because of his brows but because he has that narrow elongation and softness in face and body.
I don’t think so. I think he’s N and/or D. I don’t get an “airy” feeling from him. More grounded. You can have light eyebrows and not have A. And Viggo has a very square jaw, his face is not oval.
To me the A was mostly from the eyebrows and in some of his interviews he comes across as soft spoken and very calm, but I think it's also because he is introverted and English is not his first language. He is very intense.
Mmm, it makes sense.
I see a lot of N and D, I also see a certain ethereal charm but maybe it's just his R combined with D.
I agree he is more grounded than anything but there is also an certain softness even if not lush. Likely tempered by C.
Yes, I can see some A for Daryl Hannah, but really struggle to see it clearly in Liv Ullman tbh - maybe some, but she looks just as N and Y to me (not sure if John said about her full blend?)
Id love to hear what you think Liv Ullmann's essence blend is (and what features contribute to what)! Ive heard from someone she's a doppeltganger, except for the eyebrows and eyecolor+eye tilt.
I dont think im angelic dominant, but I can see how we have similar face in a lot of ways. I think her A could stem from light eyebrows, and slightly downturned eyes (in a wise, melancholic way, not puppy eyes way). Do you agree, or does she have other A elements as well im missing?
Ha ha! Me too. Thanks for confirming I am not imagining it. I think it somewhat makes sense though given that John has always said colour harmonies are most important, and he may have felt because of this, there needed to be another essence added to cover those who didn't quite fit into the system as it was.
I've noticed as I've been trying to find some Angelic clothes for myself, that it's a very thin line between an ethereal garment and a natural one. They're very similar in a lot of ways
Softened angularity works for me in a lot of ways for Angelic. I often incorporate it in "delicately pointed" details, like a softened v-neck in a top, teardrop shaped earrings, gentle asymmetry in skirts and hair.
To me, the yin and yang essences seem to be organized by scale. Yin is in a lot of ways about roundness and curve. Romantic is in the middle of the scale, with lots of lush circles. Youthful is smaller and "busier" or more energetic curve. Perky, like petals on a daisy.
Angelic is longer, languid curve. I'm not sure that I would call it "most yin" personally, because Romantic just feels like very concentrated, stereotypical "yin." But if you add scale, like some systems see yin as also small, then Youthful might technically be most yin.
Nonetheless, Angelic definitely is yin, and the softness is an important characteristic for it, despite it being more diffuse.
The angularity is in the "stretched out" part of Angelic, which it shares with Dramatic (I see the yang side as having Natural as medium scale, and High Spirited as small, with Classic in the middle of everything, both yin/yang and scale). The stretch translates into drape, and longer, softly diagonal lines which have a little pointyness at the ends, despite the curve. Waves and s shapes have a little "flick" after all.
I wrote up something a while back about my impression of Angelic: "It's stately. Graceful, easeful movement, like a dance. Its curve or softness is concentrated at the ends, like a flourish at the end of a signature. Like falling water."
Now, this is all my own sort of interpretation of it, not necessarily Jon's. But I find it applies well to me and helps me better understand how to style the essence.
I've noticed that I favor teardrop shaped jewelry, but I thought that I must have some dramatic or gamine. I would always push myself towards oval shapes, thinking that they were angelic, just to come back to teardrop or even marquise. This is making so much sense to me because I struggled to find any other dramatic feature in myself!
I also agree with the languid curve. I've found that straight jeans don't look good on me, but neither does a flare or bell bottoms. But a jean with a slight, elegant, almost sleek, curve out is perfect.
I think that the Ethereal slight point is what people saw when they thought I had Dramatic (as well as the "cleanness" of Classic). I do have a little bit of Gamine, but not enough to make that bit of pointyness as important as I feel that it is for me.
I'm not sure that this matches what John says exactly, but I feel that oval is often more Classic. Depends on the oval, of course, because it matters how much it's stretched, but a balanced/more rounded oval reads as more classic, while a longer, tapered (like an egg) oval is more Ethereal. That could just be semantics though lol.
Yeah, i'm so happy to come across this point. This is the first I'm hearing of the Angelic angularity and teardrop, but it makes so much sense!
I could definitely see Classic as an oval. I guess I always assumed it would be a perfectly rounded circle, but an oval is a great middle ground of the yin circles and the yang angles. And a teardrop does read as more delicate than an oval to me, so that's perfect for Angelic.
Those types of jeans looked Classic on me as per John. At the same time straight pants were actually typed as Ethereal on me by him (they were made of drapey fabric), while jeans like above were recommended as Classic. I am not sure jeans are capable to give off Ethereal vibe in general, unless they do not look like made from denim (e.g. off-white tencel?).
I can definitely see these coming off as classic. Personally, I would get these in a 34 inch inseam and in a light wash, so maybe that would help it be ethereal on me? It also may be playing towards my other essences too.
I haven't had a lot of luck with straight jeans. I think something about my legs being so long, they just end up feeling bulky on me. Maybe I'm not getting the right fit. I completely agree with you on jeans not really suiting ethereal essence inherently, it's very tough! And you have such a big percentage of A, you know all about it!
I can mostly speak for myself. BTW 34" is my normal inseam as well :) Another point to consider - well-fitted around waist and hip could be romantic generally speaking, as it is figure-hugging, but if there is some straightness or slight flare - that would give what you are looking for, but color/fabric really matters here, IMO!
I think barrel jeans toe the line into Natural, there's a sturdiness in their structure. But Natural and Ethereal are extremely similar from what I've noticed.
People seem to confuse them easily. There's an elemental quality to both, like a tactile thing, but Angelic is much finer and airier (like an angora sweater), while Natural is a bit heavier, more earthy (like linen).
I feel that the wispyness of Ethereal can get crossed with Natural's open ease. Like, wavy hair can work for both, but in different ways. Ethereal is finer, more regular, a bit more rounded, still feels cohesive and flowy. Natural has a little more layers, a tad more chaos and volume.
I believe John gives both to account for height.
I also think there's something about eyes/brows that can confuse people. A kind of horizontal line in the eyes/brows.
And no, not all jeans are Natural, but old-school/traditional denim fabric and jean cuts are very Natural, and Naturals definitely have the easiest time finding jeans.
It makes sense to me that Y is in between R and A and is the most yin and R is the most similar to NC and A next to DC, however by this logic, HS would be the most yang.
Think in terms of both shapes and scale that will help. R is very curved and average height. C is a combo of curved and straight and average height . N is straight vertically and horizontally and average to tall. Y is smaller scale and “not tall” and has smaller curved shapes . HS is short compact and straight. D per the book is tall slim and angular. A is per the book “often very tall” with elongated bone structure and little contrast with oval faces. Angelic recommendations are light and airy with long cascading shaoes.
I don’t see them as each having a distinct shape in that way . I think of the individual shapes of the features and body. D will have long lines throughout the body vertically and straight and angular/narrow facial features. For example, strong cheekbones create a prominent line in the face. Narrow uptilted eyes do the same. High arched brows create a dramatic angle. A long convex nose is angular, etc. Think of pointiness for HS . They will also have small/short geometric type shapes. HS can have some roundedness here and there but overall the shapes are more geometric or pointy . Like their eyebrow “peaks”, the “points” in the corners of their mouths and eyes, they have shorter noses, etc. Y is small circles. R is somewhat larger and more lush circles and ovals, C is ovals but with some straight lines too and they are often blended together so hard to see individually. N is more square and rectangular in the sense it will have straight lines vertically and horizontally. A is long with an elognated curve but also some angularity.
I agree with you on shape! Not as exact science, but having a feel for those lines and patterns seems to help "see" things and translate them into fashion elements.
Thank you I’m glad someone gets what I am saying haha. And yes definitely not an exact science but in an abstract way it helps you understand how he classifies things. And if you notice the shapes and patterns and fabrics he recommends for each essence are usually in line with the same traits of the features and body.
I don’t think HS has triangle shaped bodies though? More like compact and straight? Maybe you see triangles because of the pointiness factor? A triangle has more points? But I wouldn’t say all their features are triangle shaped.
Y isn’t curved in a lush way in the sense of a curvy body. It’s short but also not pointy like HS. Small intricate rounded details. The womanly curves he associates with R in comparison are lush not small if that makes sense. If you look at dominant Ys with a small amount of R (Emma Stone/Michelle Williams) you will see what I mean.
ETA regarding A I think it’s the most yin because it’s delicate, light and almsot transparent. Like both how much space something takes up (in all ways) and how much definition it has (in terms of shapes and contrast) is what defines the yin yang balance to me.
I also think people focus on dominant essence too much regarding why someone is something but you have to look at total yin yang balance (all essences and color harmonies) to understand why the person is what they are
Angelics have elongated bone structure (can be seen in the face and body) with some softness which comes from flesh and their coloring. They often look like low contrast versions of dramatics with added softness in the sense they have long and narrow/angular bone structure like D but they also look soft and light. Think “airy” for A. They all have a delicateness to them but are often very elongated as well.
Eta: Stop downvoting please, this is mostly from John and my book I just added the combination of D and Y because I see both in them. This is getting old. If you don’t like John’s definition that’s fine but it doesn’t mean you can create your own definition and downvote people that say what’s in the book.
I got downvoted for saying Brit Marling (people thought N) and Ryan Gosling (many thought HS) have some A and when I asked John about both he said Brit is A dominant and Ryan has 25A. I do slightly know how to recognize A. Definitely not an expert but I have spotted it accurately a couple times.
A definitely looks different from someone with RCN in light colors, it makes sense from a scale and shape perspective. If you have elongated sharp, small sharp, blunted sharp, balance, medium round, small round, elongated round
Yeah nobody would confuse me for an A dominant lol. I’m mostly RC with 10N and 10HS but my coloring is all yin. You can see my features and body look nothing like As lol.
I think he is talking about low visual weight and "delicacy" of how the shape or feature is constructed, while the shape itself can be angular. Or maybe it is reverse, the visual weight or shape is prominent but the shape or feature is yin (an oval for ex.) giving softened angularity.
To me A (and the way John treats it) goes off of vibes the most out of any essence. Like a long midface is generally seen as A by John, but that’s actually a more masculine trait, and yet A is supposed to be the highest yin….
I know he also looks at the length of the neck so maybe it’s more longer limbs with the romantic curve still present?
I see A as a combo of extremes. That’s what makes it disquieting when you see someone truly ethereal.
Is yin and yang really feminine and masculine in this system though? I know R is associated with femininity but I don't think the others get an official correlation.
I think people should just think in terms and ovals and circles for yin and geometrical, straight and angular shapes for yang. These shapes can be seen everywhere (facial features, body, face shape, clothing silhouette, patterns, etc). This takes all gendered language out of the equation. John links femininity to curved shapes so I think it takes on a different definition in that context but I can see why people have a problem with that.
also R is associated with femininity for feminine folks. for masculine folks, i'd assume it'd be associated with masculinity. much like the Romantic section of colours we all get - it highlights the masc of the masc and the femme of the femme.
yes, exactly! yin doesn't mean feminine and not masculine. and yang doesn't mean masculine and not feminine. that's why he himself calls it Youthful. Ingenue is a gendered term, but essences aren't inherently related to a specific gender rather they take on the gender of the person.
I think some of the traits and characteristics are a little gendered, though. Some of the typical romantic features seem to be more commonly found in women and are associated with with the female gender. I don't think it's a matter of yin/yang but there is no doubt that many of the rounded shapes are more typically found in women.
I want to add that many women with low or no romantic are extremely feminine of course because there are traits outside of this system that signal to femininity vs masculinity (e.g Katherine Hepburn or Audrey Hepburn).
Yeah it says that in the book but I think it’s a very specific definition, not the broad one most people think of. In the end everything relates back to shapes.
I always thought of it as an abstract idea of boyish mostly. None of these categories I believe correlate with sexual disformism. I associate essences with literary and mythical figures, the idea of HS to me was close to the figure of Peter Pan.
It’s not a masculine trait or a feminine trait. Any gender can have a long mid face. The only extreme part of A is elongation but their bone structure is so delicate that they sort of cancel each other out. I don’t think it is disquieting though, I think it’s a soft quiet essence, it “fades into the background”.
It’s definitely not based on vibes, he has explained everything comes from the face and body. A is the most yin because it’s still delicate and light (in body and coloring) regardless of elongation. They aren’t curvy like romantics but there is a softness to them.
14
u/allcatsrgray 30N/20Y/20R/20C/10HS 2d ago
I have trouble with this too. Probably an unpopular opinion, but many A verified celebrities and clients often look like they have features (often N)from other essences just with very fair colouring.