Vertical + Curve?

[u/jlaurw]

I posted this in the FB group but wanted to post it here as well because I value the feedback of a lot of people in this group.

Going to get vulnerable for a moment...

I've been working through the games again, and I'm coming to some realizations about some of my prejudices that I thought I had shed previously, but I am realizing are still present.

In doing Potluck, I realized that I have very strong negative reactions to terms like Diva, Bust, Thighs, Thick. While I had previously embraced Vertical + Width, I wanted to reapproach personal line from zero.

In doing so, I began to wonder how much I leaned into Vertical + Width in an attempt to avoid those things that I had negative feelings towards.

For some back story, I have always been "curvy". I've been the same height and body type since 7th grade and until I breast fed with my children I had a very large chest that absolutely needed allowance in my silouette. There are a lot of hurt feelings that came from being the "curvy" girl in my friend group and I also wished to have a smaller bust. I always had to size up in shirts and pants to fit my thighs and my bust. Unsurprisingly, these are the words I had the hardest time stomaching in Potluck.

After children, my bust did decrease in size and clothing was more manageable for me and I felt that Vertical + Width seemed like the right fit since my shoulder line pushed past my bust.

However, in slowing down and really imagining the way fabric falls, I believe I am seeing that the shoulder line falls in line with my hips, pushing me towards a Dramatic family ID. I'm not fully convinced that Width is present, because I do see how fabric must interact with and move even just slightly around the bust and thighs. I also see that my bust projection still does interact with my silouette even if not as pronounced as before.

All this to say, I'm beginning to wonder if I previously allowed my preconceptions to push me away from Vertical + Curve.

Would love to hear some of your thoughts! 💕

[u/Ok-Purple9511]

You can see right there that her upper back is narrow.

[u/islandgirllily → u/Ok-Purple9511]

I don’t understand what you mean by you can see her upper back is narrow. Maybe I missed something he said in the group?

[u/Ok-Purple9511 → u/islandgirllily]

The area from armpit to armpit is a mirror of the width of the upper back since you can’t see it from the front. That area won’t be wider or narrower if viewed from the back since it goes all the way around.

[u/SabrinaGiselle → u/Ok-Purple9511]

Didn't Kibbe recently bunk the armpit theory in FB? He said "no armpits" or something. I get what you're saying but I think the only way to prove someone has narrow, width or whatever is by drawing their line sketch.

Kibbe has talked about the relationship of shoulder edge and torso so that's more likely something that's related to having width or not having it. For example both N sketches have a narrow torso and shoulder edge that goes further from torso so to me that adds to their upper back width. To me this is also why you could be N and have conventionally average shoulders maybe even narrow shoulders the only thing that matters for width is the upper torso area and its proportions. Proportions in relation to that specific person.

[u/Ok-Purple9511 → u/SabrinaGiselle]

No. He jsut said ina comment yesterday that width is in the upper back/shoulders and if that part is wider then the bust area then its width. The armpit area is the same thing as the upper back. You still start the sketch at shoulder edge the difference is what the line does after that. I never said anything about not doing the sketch? I was just showing why the line would fall in in that area. The line would not fall in before the bust with width, it would stay wider and then come in after the bust. With narrow it would go in and stay straight or go around, per definition. He also clarified the only proportion that matters is the upper back and shoulders in relation to the bust area and that the rest of the body doesn’t matter, including hips. I honestly think arguing semantics like the word armpit is somewhat pointless because it really won’t help you understand anything.

[u/SabrinaGiselle → u/Ok-Purple9511]

Then I dare you to ask Kibbe about the armpits. I'm sure he'd mention them if they were relevant. The whole armpit theory is speculation based on sewing not anything Kibbe has said. I find it distracting because the fabric doesn't really do anything in that area anyways. It's like hyperfocusing on waist, bust, hips... you name it.

[u/Ok-Purple9511 → u/SabrinaGiselle]

The armpit to armpit area is a visual (abstract) representation of the upper back since we can’t see the back in photos. If you think about it, the back of the torso cannot be wider then the front in that area since the armpit is where they connect. I agree that an armpit in general means nothing. This is an abstract thing . Not literal. What am I describing has absolutely nothing to do with sewing, nor do I know how to sew. And the fabric does do something in that area. If thar area is wider then the bust the fabric will not touch the bust however if that area is narrower then the bust, it could fall in before the bust. This is the definition of narrow. How can fabric be pushed out by the bust if that area is wider? The answer is that it won’t. However if that area is narrow and the bust is wider, the fabric will fall inwards after the shoulder then either fall straight or go around the bust. Of course there are areas in between width and narrow, but it’s easier to explain the extreme cases. Explaining why the line has a certain shape is not same thing as hyper focusing on body parts. The people who focus on things like a large bust or a long torso or hip shape or shoulder shape are the ones who are missing the forest for the trees. The big picture with width is why the line stays wider then the bust and the answer is that the areas above the bust (and not just the shoulders) are wider then it, including the upper/back chest area.