date
newest »
newest »
Summarizing all said before, i define two types of the Dramatics.1. Dramatic-Classic. Strong and sharp, sometimes athletic, sometimes "regal". "Snow Queen". What Kibbe described as the Drama. Clear-cut, even sharp, features, smooth texture, high contrast or need for high contrast (Winter color type or light blondes). Famke Janssen.
2. Dramatic-Natural. Strong but softened, feminine. Softened geometry, middle textured, low/middle contrast, distinct feminicity (may have some "romantic" features like X skeleton, round eyes with long lashes, soft lips). Verushka type.
More frequently seen European type that in my opinion Kibbe failed to discribe. Also he regretfully mixed up this type with Flamboyant Natural. Well, i'm not satisfied even with the terms here - what flamboyant for God's sake is in Jennifer Aniston, Cameron Diaz or Julia Roberts? Anyhow my aim is to separate from their type.
The difference is easily detected when we look what is flattering to both.
"Aniston type" is good in shapeless, soft and cosy, relaxed, laid back, oversized things, boy-meet-girl or "teenage girly", country, ethnic. In everything Kibbe prescribed for the Flamboyant Naturals. It's certainly an "outdoor"/"country" nice type.
On the contrary Dramatic-Natural is an "indoor"/"salon" type and can't wear all these "free people". The Dramatics need fitted silhouettes with distinct geometry and form. Our lines are strong - softened but not soft. We are "naturally elegant" (without crisp, too much polish, sophistication, striking drama) or "casual lux" (many thanks to Donna Karan) but we are never good in laid back, country, funny, unisex and we rarely feel comfortable with ethnic.
We can more successfully incorporate some Romantic elements - some curvy, traditionally feminine lines/forms, flower or jewellery motives. But without loosing "not complicated and not relaxed" impression (to avoid perplexing words "simple" and "strong"). We need to stay graceful.
And what Kibbe describes as Soft Drama (Sophia Loren type) i guess is not Drama at all. Exotic - yes, drama - no. I'd call it Flamboyant Romantic.
Finally I decided that I am "Theatrical Romantic" in Kibbe's terms. I have suddenly realized what style are things in my wadrobe that suit me best. Then I've read again Kibbe's theory and everything coincides. Now I'm really happy but also very angry at Kibbe - I've lost a year (!) to clear out my type because he sais that tall women can be only Dramatics or Flamboyant Naturals. I guess we can be almost everything exept Gamine:) Please, exuse me for all this mess.


the petals of the pink lily, which because of its color would ordinarily read
This image (to the left) is particularly interesting. If you look at her hair texture and eyes there is something vulnerable and soft there – almost
combination of styles. The exaggerated silhouette of the one sleeved top coupled with her pose and expression all read as Drama. However, this young woman has a lot of the 


I guess we are not pure Drama because we are low contrast, not enough bold, not enough angular. Real Drama style looks havy on us. We are not Famke Janssen and the less we are athletic Brigitte Nielsen.
We look awful in Natural things, in everything "plain" and relaxed (in laconic Classic as well), much worse than in Dramatic. Though Verushka carefully adopted Boho so fashionable in her youth.
We are not Romantics - not curvy, dollish, sensual. Too much Yang, dinamic, sporty. And surely we are just too big. Can't go far with the Baroque. Not Sophia Loren as well.
And finely are we a model type? All that unisex "comme des garcons", Zara casual, "separated from the body geometry" are not flattering us. In this case we are too feminine, LOL.
I dare think that we are just a new modern antropological type. And fortunately the attempts to cross feminine strokes with the dinamic, fitted, "sporty" silhouette can be seen on catwalks quite often now. Not necessarily Drama.