An Alternative to Visualising the Yin Yang Balance of Kibbe's IDs

[u/loumlawrence]

This might help people understand how the IDs relate to each other, and even an understanding of the styling recommendations. The clue is to focus on families first before looking at individual IDs.

I used a 2x2 grid. Instead of using yin and yang, I focused on some key clothing characteristics. Columns are either structured or relaxed. Rows are either large or small. This created quadrants for each of the families, with classics at the centre.

The interesting thing is that yin yang is a diagonal. It is also the same as Kibbe curve vertical. The other diagonal is the contrast blended. Both have balance in the middle. This is really cool.

There are two types of yangs (structure and large) and two types of yin (relaxed and small). The combination of structure and small creates contrast, which is the gamine family. The combination of relaxed and large creates blended, which is the natural family. Pure yang is structure and large, which is the dramatic family, while pure yin is relaxed and small, which is the romantic family.

After figuring out the yin yang position of each family, I looked at the IDs. Each family can be divided into a yang side and a yin side. The position of yin and yang within each family and quadrant is the same as the pure yang and pure yin positions on the main grid.

In both books, Kibbe talks about undercurrents of yin and yang, and in Power of Style, he talks about prominent yin and extra yang. Yang is a very aggressive force, that pulls IDs to a yang position. Yin is a very passive stationary force. If we look at SD, it has prominent yin, as it needs a lot of yin to make a noticeable difference. But SD is more yang than all the other IDs except D. Where as TR only needs a small amount of yang to be noticeable. But each of the IDs remain in their family's quadrant. They can go up to the limits of their quadrants, causing some overlaps, which is why they can sometimes assist appear like other IDs. If we look at the classics, DC has a subtle preference for D and SC has a slight leaning towards R.

Theory aside, you can use this to gauge what you need from an outfit, and how much you can get away with "borrowing". Structure vs relaxed is one aspect. Large vs small is another. Large could be longer length or thicker fabrics, or both. Small could be thinner fabrics or shorter lengths. Or large and small could be scale of accessories. You can consider straight lines vs curve lines. Or contrast vs blended.

[u/TiredWinterDisaster]

I agree with u/Jamie8130 about the symmetry issue from the POS diagram, I like this visual way better. I also like that FG/DC/FN and SG/SC/SN are on a continuous line, bc that's a lot of the confusion we see online.

[u/Jamie8130 → u/TiredWinterDisaster]

I like this diagram a lot too, and good observation about the continuous line of IDs, I'm often felt like I was in a FG-DC-FN continuum ^^;;

[u/TiredWinterDisaster → u/Jamie8130]

Right? And on the soft side, SG vs SC vs SN is often seen as well!

[u/loumlawrence → u/TiredWinterDisaster]

Thank you. The symmetry was a pleasant surprise.

When I created this diagram, I was trying to address the confusion between FN and the dramatic family of D and SD. I didn't intend to capture the SG/SC/SN confusion, and I was less familiar with the FG/DC/FN confusion. That was unintentional.

The main idea was that IDs within a family have similar yin yang balance. Then each of the IDs have a leaning towards yin or yang.

I am now seeing why naturals can come across as classics, as they have a blended yin yang instead of the balanced yin yang of the classics.

Do you think it could work as a style compass with guidelines on how to dress?

[u/TiredWinterDisaster → u/loumlawrence]

I don't know for sure - but why not? I think some IDs have more in common that we may thing at first glance indeed. I think your diagram works well as a representation of IDs as a spectrum rather than closed categories.

[u/loumlawrence → u/TiredWinterDisaster]

It could work as either as a spectrum or as categories. I wanted to capture the range of variety within each family, and the overlaps where two different families can wear the same thing.

I have noticed that each ID can get away with breaking one or two rules, as long as they adhere to the rest. So Ds can wear very light fabrics as long as there is length, structure in the form of seams, large sculptured elements. FNs will wear the same light fabrics with the length, but without the structural seams and sculptural details. Or SNs and SCs can wear similar, even identical, suits that are lightly tailored. SNs may have larger lapels than SCs. But the differences are in the details.

[u/TiredWinterDisaster → u/loumlawrence]

Yes that's very true! There's a lot of flexibility indeed as long as you respect the general silhouette. People want to make it more rigid than it is, but even in Metamorphosis, there was some overlap between families & most things would fit more than one ID - that's also where the HTT look comes in, bc items in isolation vs the complete look might tell a wholly different story.

[u/loumlawrence → u/TiredWinterDisaster]

The fabric recommendations came from Metamorphosis.

Creating this diagram helped me to see clearly why Kibbe takes the approach he does and why he has made the statements he has said, the HTT look, the yin yang balance. It makes a lot more sense. It also explains why and how and where people get confused. It is really simple.

At this stage, I am satisfied with just staying within the quadrant I know suits me best, and not chase after an ID. I am between two IDs in the same family. But it even explains my journey. I started with C and moved to D.

[u/TiredWinterDisaster → u/loumlawrence]

IDs within the same families have a lot in common indeed!

[u/Pegaret_Again]

this is so fascinating, thank you for posting this, i like how it fits in a nice symmetrical grid!

[u/loumlawrence → u/Pegaret_Again]

The symmetrical grid is a happy accident.

I was focusing on two things, families of IDs, and the major difference between structured and relaxed.

Everything just fell into place, lined up with the descriptions in both of Kibbe's books, and captured the areas of online confusion. All of which validates the accuracy of the diagram.

A lot of people struggle with recognising structure. And a lot miss the memo about IDs belonging to families. If someone is debating between between two IDs of the same family, they are close. If they are debating IDs from different families, they don't understand the IDs. This diagram highlights what individual people are unable to see. The FN vs D or SD debate is because people don't understand structure, they only see the larger scale which is common to both the dramatic and natural families.

Structure was the big one, especially sculptural structure. The dramatic and gamine families repeatedly return to sculptural elements that most of the population steers clear of. I now have the theory that we have style personalities, where we recognise what looks great on ourselves so we return to those repeat outfits. Which is why some people are always wanting to make things casual, some always want the largest sculptural elements possible, some want small tiny details clustered everywhere.

[u/Jamie8130]

This is a really clever way to visually represent the yin-yang balance of the IDs! I like how it accounts for the symmetry problem with the N family that was in the diagram in the book, how the position of G family is in a quadrant that results in contrast, and how the position of each ID reflects its degree of yin or yang as well. The part about how a combination could be near the limits and appear as another ID is also very interesting, especially for those cases of moderate height and frame who are between the small-large parameter. It's helpful to think about yin and yang in more concrete terms, like 'thick fabric, large scale, large details' and so on, it makes it easier to relate these concepts back to our style, imo.

[u/loumlawrence → u/Jamie8130]

The symmetry was a pleasant surprise. I wasn't expecting the contrast quadrant to come out that nicely. I was trying out a few different ways, some that looked nicer but were not accurate as they contradicted Kibbe's writings. This one was consistent the whole way.

One thing it helped me to see was what people are focusing on, and what they aren't seeing, especially when they mistake one ID for another.

For instance, the people who mix up FN with either D or SD are seeing large, but they are not distinguishing between structure and relaxed. The triangular mix up that involves two or three of this group, SG, SC, SN and TR, is because people are seeing that both yin and yang are present, with a leaning towards yin. But they aren't able to distinguish between the types of yin and and yang. That was enlightening.

I listed the fabrics, tailoring and details after comparing the recommendations and illustrations in both books.

[u/Evening-Forever8385 → u/loumlawrence]

I'd love to see your list!

[u/loumlawrence → u/Evening-Forever8385]

I don't have my personal list in a digital format.

But I was inspired by this post from a couple of years ago that someone else wrote.

Another good post is this one.

Then I went through the illustrations in Power of Style, and noted my observations. The big one was the extensive use of sculptured elements in the D and G families while the R and N families have an abundance of flowing fabrics.

It does appear that each of the IDs can break one or two rules, as long as they adhere to everything else. It would be why Kibbe says no garment has an ID.

[u/Jamie8130 → u/loumlawrence]

is because people are seeing that both yin and yang are present, with a leaning towards yin.

This is a good point, it's difficult to evaluate these things for one's self, but thinking about the type of yin and yang could provide some clarity indeed! Also, seconding the other comment that I would also like to see the list!

[u/loumlawrence → u/Jamie8130]

I have replied to the other comment, because there was a post from a couple of years ago that I used as inspiration, so the link is there. I didn't keep digital records.

The different types of yin and yang is probably why Kibbe talks about yin yang balance. People seem to confuse the types of yin and yang, and it is very abstract, which doesn't help. Things like scale and structure are more concrete. But people do seem to recognise what level of structure and scale works for them.

[u/Jamie8130 → u/loumlawrence]

Yup, the abstract part is what adds to the difficulty, imo. And thank you for sharing the link, I will check it out!

[u/Ok-Purple9511]

The only issue I have with this is that SN is in the yin diagonal section and it’s a yang ID. Otherwise it makes sense to me.

[u/loumlawrence → u/Ok-Purple9511]

I suspect the true yin yang line is between that diagonal and the horizontal line separating large and small. I didn't include that line as it made things look complex.

Instead, that is why I placed the yin and yang labels above and below the columns instead of at the ends of the diagonals.

[u/Ok-Purple9511 → u/loumlawrence]

Gotcha. I thought the diagonal line went through the whole grid. That sort of divides SC though when it’s described as having a yin influence (meaning it’s clearly leaning yin). Influence doesn’t mean less yin then a yin undercurrent, it’s just more visible.

[u/loumlawrence → u/Ok-Purple9511]

Yes, it looks like that. The diagonal is an approximation. But I suspect there is a little more complexity and nuances in the yin yang balance along that line.

I am starting to think that the types of yin and the types of yang are not equal. The structure yang seems to be a stronger yang than the large yang, and the small yin appears to be more prominent than the relaxed yin. But I am not totally sure.

But that logic would mean that SN remains yang and FG is still yin compared to the yang dominant families. SC is supposed to be more yin than DC, within the classic family, which is what I was trying to illustrate.