Discover your color palette and your style type.

Style Identities: the NATURAL

5/3/2015

Of the seven pure style identities, I believe Natural is the most common type - but perhaps the hardest to define.

The other types are exceptional by definition:

Dramatic are exceptionally imposing.
Romantics are exceptionally sexy.
Ethereals are exceptionally otherworldly.
Gamines and Ingenues stand out because of their seemingly eternal youthfulness and their small stature.
And Classics are unusually symmetrical and balanced.

Naturals, by contrast, are mostly defined by what they are not.

They are not visually extreme in any regard. Not extremely imposing, not extremely small, not extremely sexy, not extremely alien.

Naturals are just that - humans in their typical, average, natural state.

If Naturals get a superlative, it has to be "most friendly-looking." Even Natural supermodels look nice!

Christie Brinkley

Heidi Klum

Naturals create an overall visual impression of being friendly, sturdy, and ordinary.

The attributes in a woman that tend to create this impression include:

An "athletic" body: straight, strong, and wide-boned
A toothy, friendly smile
A wide jaw
A nose that's large but blunt-edged, not sharp
A long, blunt (not pointy) chin
Close-set or small eyes
Average to above-average height

Jennifer Aniston

Sandra Oh

Khloe Kardashian

Uzo Aduba

Whoopi Goldberg

Lena Dunham

Wait - go back a minute. Did she just call Naturals ordinary-looking?

Well, I did.

The ordinariness, the average-ness, is what makes them so appealing.

They feel familiar. We relate to them. We expect them to welcome us as fellow ordinary people.

Sarah Jessica Parker

Gemma Whelan

Of course, since appearance =/= personality, a friendly-looking Natural may secretly be a right royal b****.

But that's part of the fun, isn't it?

If you're a Natural whose guileless exterior belies a devilish interior, you're twice as fascinating.

Kathy Griffin

Chloe Sevigny

Regardless of whether or not you're the girl-next-door that you appear to be, your Natural form will be most flattered by Natural clothes: simple lines, comfortable fits, textured fabrics, functional accessories, and an overall informal vibe.

Natural or Dramatic?

Naturals can be confused with Dramatics. Both types can appear somewhat masculine. ("Yang," other writers say, but I'm trying to eschew those euphemisms.)

To distinguish between a Dramatic and a Natural, you might ask, "Does this face look friendly or threatening?"

This face says, "Let's be friends."

This face says,"I'm dangerous." The overall narrowness and angled eyes read as predatory.

Natural or Classic?

A Natural's ordinariness may cause her to be confused with a Classic.

An important difference between a Natural and a Classic is that Classics present an idealized version of the human average: moderate and balanced in every single dimension, without any asymmetry.

Naturals present the actual human average, which comes with asymmetries and lumps and bumps.

A test: Look at a person and imagine a cartoonist's caricature. If that's hard to do, you might be looking at a Classic. It's hard to caricature a Classic because nothing sticks out. But Naturals have plenty that sticks out.

Lili Taylor - easy to caricature. And so appealing.

This is why Naturals feel accessible and Classics feel aloof: Classics are so balanced that it feels almost inhuman. Naturals' "imbalances" are entirely human.

Two types of average: an average that's almost inhumanly balanced...

...and an average that's relatable because it lacks "perfect" balance.

31 Comments

Katie

10/2/2014 02:33:28 pm

Do you think Kim K is a Dramatic Romantic? Also, If you can be a combination of two style identities, is it possible to be a combination of two seasons? For instance, if your skin is absolutely cool (like True Winter) but you have the saturation/clarity of a Bright Winter?

Rachel

10/3/2014 01:56:32 am

I sure do. She has a lot of D in her face, but her body is practically the epitome of R. :-)

The short answer to your question about season is no, I don't think there is a season between True Winter and Bright Winter. The difference between the two seasons is already so subtle that I can't imagine what colors would fill a space between them.

The longer answer is that, to talk about your season, we must talk not about what you look like but what your best colors look like. So your skin may *look* purely cool, and your overall coloring may *look* extremely saturated, but your season is ultimately determined by the appearance of your most flattering colors. Drape with True Winter and Bright Winter colors, and one set will be clearly superior.

:-)

Andrea

3/30/2019 01:05:02 pm

I used to think Kim K was a Dramatic Romantic but upon further inspection although she is short she is a Soft Dramatic. She has a very angular bone structure with a soft body type, and she looks best in monochromatic schemes, she also has dramatic coloring. She has a waist but it is not waspish.

anon

10/4/2014 03:19:56 pm

please do classic next!

Vanessa link

10/5/2014 07:22:02 am

Love the way you've described Natural vs. Classic. Perfect.

April

10/8/2014 06:00:48 am

I love reading your take on this.

Helen

11/17/2014 06:08:05 am

Sigh. Yes. That's the conclusion I'd drawn from all the discussions on line - Naturals are the default setting for 'you don't fit in any other category', a kind of waste paper basket diagnosis. It's not inspiring, it's almost a rejection. And I see flamboyant natural faces which have those amazing bones and think yes THAT is distinctive, you can see someone in that category at a glance, and the soft naturals with the distinctive shaped nose and eyes and the slightly more curvy figure - and think a lot of so called 'naturals' are neither of them. They can't all be non descript 'not otherwise defined' people - I think there are categories that are harder to define and haven't yet been properly looked at.

<getting off soap box to continue campaign for Not Just Natural women>

Maria

11/7/2015 05:03:54 pm

I completely agree with this! I also find it insulting that every other group is described as having the potential to be very beautiful in its own way, but according to this arcticle, naturals are just appealing because of their averageness. What a bunch of drivel. I guess all of the beautiful women that are categorized as naturals are just ordinary because this Rachel woman has some sort of negative bias against naturals.

Shannon

12/1/2014 09:39:09 am

I'm fairly sure I'm a soft natural, but the height limitations on all the Kibbe categories confuse me. I am 5'11, which some have told me would place me into either the dramatic, or the flamboyant natural categories. My body and face just aren't that yang though, and people never guess I'm as tall as I am because I'm rather rounded. ;) My widest part is my hips, smallest is my waist, with my bust in between those two. Also, what season do you think Lena Dunham is? I've seen her types as a soft autumn, but also as a soft summer.

Rachel Arnt-Schemmel

12/5/2014 08:35:52 am

Height's an important factor, but it's not determinative. If everything else about you says Romantic Natural, being a little petite won't go far to counteract that impression.

Not sure about Dunham, but she's definitely not Bright. The pure hues she favors aren't the best.

Lauren Color

1/27/2015 02:21:43 pm

Hi Rachel,

I love your blog and I am enjoying your take on the essences/style identities. I have to say, though, this representation of Natural disappoints me. It does feel unfair to define Natural by everything it is not, rather than by what it is most exceptionally. If Natural is so ordinary, how come there are so many exotic and interesting looking women listed here as examples? Where is the sensuality of Natural portrayed? Sure, Natural may not be va-va-voom wiggle dress sexy, but Natural is extremely sexy in other and equally obvious ways. What about the remarkable power and substance of the Natural bone structure? (Those cheekbones!!!). The ease, grace and athleticism that many Naturals convey. The comfort in their own bodies that is refreshing and enjoyable to behold (like Jennifer Lawrence).

1/28/2015 08:41:30 am

Hi, Lauren..
I attempted to describe Naturals as accurately as possible. You're probably right that I could have put greater emphasis on Naturals' athleticism and powerful builds. I really appreciate your point about Naturals projecting comfort in their own bodies.
Obvious, extreme sexiness is a characteristic trait of Romantics. Cheekbone prominence is a characteristic trait of Dramatics. If I see those traits in a Natural, I'm probably looking at a blend -- a Romantic Natural or a Dramatic Natural.
In describing all of these style identities, I strive primarily for accuracy. I believe it's accurate to say that Naturals are, by definition, average rather than extreme in most regards. (That's why we call a Natural the "girl/boy next door.')
What's accurate may not feel fair to everyone. I'm an Ethereal Natural, and though today I love how I look, there were times in my life when I yearned to look more like a Dramatic or a Romantic or an Ingenue. I once longed for great height, a small nose, a more feminine figure, and narrower hands and feet... But I don't long for those things anymore. I see the Natural in myself and embrace it. It's not imposing; it's not va-va-voom; it's not dainty. It's T-shirt and jeans. It's not fair or unfair; it just is.

11/7/2015 05:14:53 pm

In response to Rachel, again, perhaps it would make sense to elaborate more on the positive traits of a natural. A girl-next-door type could range from blah to radiantly beautiful. Just like a symmetrical, classic type could range from plain to stunning, or a romantic could range from dumpy to dazzling. Since most people are "average looking" (hence the term average - in the middle), that would, by your explanation, put most women in the N category. So it really makes no sense. Instead, perhaps focusing on the vibe of each type, rather than which are more or less beautiful/sexy/stunning, would make this article more believable and accurate.
It's not to suggest that any woman is ugly, by the way, it's just that a woman of any group or mix of groups has the potential to be exceptionally attractive, and that whether a person has been blessed with great looks or not, that they can fit in any category.

1/30/2015 03:42:06 am

Can you elaborate on what a blunt nose is? I know you said it's not "sharp-edged," but where are we looking for the bluntness? At the tip or on the sides where the nostrils flare? Ally Sheedy seems to have a pointier chin and nose, and Gemma Whelan's chin appears pointy to me, too.

Susan R

2/6/2015 07:14:57 am

This actually makes a lot of sense to me because I have been trying to put myself into some sort of category, when really, all I have to do is identify exactly what I am not and when I do, it does put me right in the Natural category. I do feel more Yang Natural I guess, although I feel like I could be a Classic Natural too--if that'a a separate category or a blend--not sure. I have a smaller head and smaller eyes and just a straight nose that isn't large or small, so I guess I fit that Yang Natural category. I haven't liked it so far though because many of the clothing recs seem so far out of what I would wear--some of it is so drapey and boho looking, which is not me at all.

Sandra Stuka link

7/1/2016 04:04:08 pm

After searching, calculating and trying to figure what the heck I am doing, I finally have narrowed myself down to a "Soft Summer". It seems everything has finally fit together. I thought taking care of children was complicated, but truthfully I think this task took more concentration and thought.

fifi

7/24/2016 10:10:19 am

Lili Taylor has a very strong Ethereal element to her too though, she's not pure natural...I see Ethereal Natural, with ethereal standing out a little more...watch her performances and you'll see what I mean. She played a very odd villainous character (I forgot which movie) and she came of as Ethereal Dramatic. Kate Bush is another Ethereal Natural (with Ingenue or Romantic). What do you think?

Kat

7/27/2016 03:09:03 am

The Kibbe and Kitchener types of systems are more complex than just "hey I'm a romantic so I must be exceptionally sexy" or what really gets me is "hi I'm a natural and I'm really unexceptional". Is Christie Brinkley unexceptional in looks? In a way, yes. She doesn't look exotic or unusual per se, but that doesn't make her lacking in the looks department. And to be honest, I'd consider her to be sexier than Marilyn Monroe any day of the week. Romantics have rounded everything, but that only equates to sexy in a very broad and generic sense. Sexy comes in many forms.
And just because a face can be caricatured does not mean it's got lumps and bumps. What it means is that the face has something unique to it. It could be lumps, but it could also be that the face is comical, expressive, exotic, or asymmetrical. Models tend to be naturals or possess strong natural qualities.
Natural in itself is described as yang, but softened by blunt edges. It doesn't mean large, manly features on a woman's face, like you suggest. It can! But often isn't. You could go in a more negative direction with any group (for example, romantic could look undefined, flabby) but you only seem to do so here, in the natural group. Why?
Natural just means angular without being sharp. Think of some dramatic examples, like Sophia Loren or Angelica Huston. Their bone structure is very prominent. Everything sticks out. Then think of people like Liv Tyler or Cameron Diaz, and even though their bone structure is still strong (yang), it's not severe or sharp. It's blunt. That gives them more of the friendly, approachable look that you describe (not flaws or relatable "average-ness").

Melina

9/7/2016 09:49:25 am

In my opinion, Naturals surely have not that much cause for complaint as some posters here make it seem - after all, they are the model that today's (Western) society tries to impose on *everyone*...! For example, everyone is supposed to be & look their best with a full smile; everyone is supposed to relax and be casual in jeans & T-shirt and trainers... When for many of us (Romantics and Ethereals for example), those are actually the worst things we could wear, style-wise... (And I've never understood how is anyone supposed to "relax" in something as constrictive and uncomfortable a jeans!) And further, the no or little make-up look is definitely favoured in everyday life, at least where I live, something that again doesn't suit every style type at all... Plus one gets lots of flak from other women (though mostly indirectly) if one is perceived to pay too much attention on one's appearance, unfortunately, though again, that's just entirely natural for some types, that's who they (we) are...!

Ginger

4/29/2017 04:20:56 pm

Melina - absolutely spot on! I live in LA and there is an all encompassing obsession with Natural here. It feels like you can't get a job unless you look fabulous in a plain t-shirt and jeans, have an enormous, Julia Roberts smile with big choppers, and have an insanely toned and athletic body. So many actresses these days are Naturals or Natural blends with nosejobs... Natural seems to have taken over the beauty zeitgeist and this Romantic-Ethereal-Gamine for one has had enough of it :/

6/2/2017 11:37:20 am

As a Natural blend, i struggle with how to feel fabulous in casual, natural clothes. Exactly because of its common ordinary-ness, it feels boring. I'm sure there's a way to feel fabulous with any style, and everyone needs to feel fabulous sometimes. I struggle with that with Natural. And my mom struggles with that with Classic. (She's also retired and feels like classic clothes are office clothes and she's DONE with that. :)

Rachell

6/7/2017 10:13:59 am

I know this is tough! I can relate because I'm an Ethereal Natural. All I can say is, try to trust that Natural clothes are exactly the thing that elevates Natural beauty from the ordinary to the extraordinary. I see it over and over in my analyses: a strongly Natural woman is "meh" in almost everything, then I suddenly drape her in Natural clothes and she instantly becomes gorgeous. It's a striking change.

Kels

7/19/2017 08:06:29 pm

A lot of these comments are really hurtful and reinforce the very negative "Natural" woman stereotypes that commenters themselves are rankling against. There are varying levels of conventional attractiveness in all of the types. Rachel has lived her life as an "Ethereal Natural" type; she likely knows this type more intimately than most of the others. If you think this entry is insensitive or disrespectful, perhaps it is due to some insecurity you hold. We all know there are beautiful "Naturals," and we can also clearly identify the similarities between people of this type. If you disagree with the constructs of the type completely, abandon all of the classifications! Wear what you want. But there is literally zero need to insult Rachel for this post. She espouses the most inclusive, open-minded school of thought on the topic that I've encountered.

1/19/2018 07:56:47 pm

Thanks for your comment, I completely agree with you Kels.
I think Rachel's system is neutral and the most accurate I've come across. Not to mention that Naturals have a HUGE advantage in that natural has taken over the current beauty zeitgeist, as Melina said. It's much easier to get ahead in so many ways with Natural looks (friendly, sturdy, toned, athletic) these days and en-masse fashion is almost exclusively based around very casual clothing. In the societal concept of attractiveness, a big friendly toothy smile has become de rigeur - even with royalty, just look at Kate Middleton and now Meghan Markle, both natural blends!
I often think I should have been around in the 50's instead, when my Ingenue and Classic would have fitted right in to the all-encompassing standard of beauty!

Kitty

1/7/2018 06:31:37 pm

I thought Lena was supposedly a soft gamine? And whoopi also classed as some kind of gamine (I don't personally think,she is, but anyhow..)
Sarah Jessica Parker is anything but average, and has some very..unusual features. It all seems very subjective when it comes to naturals, I'm confused! 😞
I thought they were the athletic, sporty, all American, "girl next door" types , americas sweethearts and models. Tall, large boned, broad & blunt angles.

Cameron Diaz and Sandra bullock being prime examples.
Oh and I love your descriptions btw, I'm obsessed with your blog entries and amazing insights! Natural just confuses the heck outta me

Anonymous

4/29/2018 11:48:36 am

I agree that there's some confusion with some of the people listed here. Particularly Lena Dunham for me. She's very Gamine - a Natural blend, but she is flattered by playfulness in fashion and her beauty is very much highlighted by Gamine sort of makeup (look at her in a cat eye). I also think the roundness in Lena's features comes from a little bit of R. I think there is some confusion between R blends with masculine essences - who may appear "average" because their styling is either highlighting their masculinity in a way that makes their R come off as dumpy, or are draped in overly feminine fashions that do not honor their masculine features - and true Natural blunt yang bone structure. You see the distinction not only Christie Brinkley/Heidi Klum, but Lili Taylor and Jennifer Aniston - that bluntness is not coming from soft flesh, but from bones. There are degrees of traditional "prettiness" in each Natural woman, but I definitely think it's more helpful to define Natural in more specific terms than just "ordinary."

Natural, to me, in its pure form is defined by an outdoorsy-ness, a ruggedness, a striking masculinity that is earth-bound rather than lofty. Though this probably sounds just as insulting to some people as describing Naturals as "ordinary," I have thought of Natural as best represented by the sort of Brooklyn-meets-Vermont "lumberjack" chic that utterly took over some corners of the fashion world in the late 2000s (and is still alive and kicking today). It's "average" in the sense that it's the visual representation of traditional masculine expectations - molding the earth with one's own two hands, being a provider, taking part in physical activity, embracing practicality over aesthetic concerns. Natural is competent, self-sufficient, not a show-off. It's utilitarian. It gets the job done.

In that way, I think Natural actually corresponds with Romantic more than any other essence - it's the ultimate standard of earthy, "workman"-type masculinity that has been a consistent cultural expectation of men for millennia. It's "average" manliness - masculinity pushed to its own extreme in the way that Romantic is "femininity" as defined by its reproductive role (which I believe is extremely unfortunate - no woman is defined by her reproductive potential or the relative "sexiness" of her body, but, as Rachel has discussed, Romantic women visually exemplify this standard, regardless of their own authentic feelings toward traditional feminine expectations). Natural is "average" masculinity in that Natural features correspond with the (again, constricting and potentially oppressive) expectation that the "average" man works with his hands to provide and shape the earth, just as Romantic visually matches the (outdated and patriarchal) expectation that the "average" woman is devoted to a reproductive, domestic role.

In my experience, I see N and R as the most common types. Many women in particular are blends of the two. I don't think R is necessarily defined by exceptional sexiness anymore than N is defined by exceptional athleticism - but *could* people with those essences, in the right styling, achieve those impressions? Most likely. I think it is a mistake, however, to call N "average" while failing to apply the same word to R. Romantic is "average" femininity in that it's our culture's overriding feminine expectation, and while our standard of beauty is so out-of-whack that virtually no real person without a celebrity glam squad/plastic surgery budget can hope to achieve what is "sexy" in 2018, I maintain that Romantic and Natural lines are the most common among the general population.

In this sense, I think Rachel is completely correct to describe Natural as "ordinary." However, the strong variation in physical features of the "Naturals" listed here gives off the impression that it's just a catch-all category for people who are "average" (ironically, I see the Natural supermodels here as better examples of the prototypical Natural so far as their exemplifying which physical features tend to give off a Natural impression - the facial broadness in particular, the athleticism, the sturdiness).

I also was surprised to see SJP listed as a Natural, considering all the crazy outfits she wore on SATC, but perhaps those outfits only seemed crazy because while she's an outstanding actress and her "character" seems like someone who would wear those clothes, they did not fully match her lines? (In fact, the insane high fashion on Carrie only served to highlight how unhappy and frazzled she was as a person? Wonderful expression of character through clothing, I think.) I swore SJP was an Ethereal or Dramatic blend with Natural, and while her elongation would seem to suggest this, I'm not so sure after looking at how much better she appears in more relaxed clothes. For instance, this outfit (which, interestingly, looks very similar to the casual looks sported by Gisele, another Natural who doesn't really seem

Deborah Edwards

7/6/2018 01:31:49 pm

My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun (Sonnet 130)
William Shakespeare, 1564 - 1616
My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun;
Coral is far more red than her lips' red;
If snow be white, why then her breasts are dun;
If hairs be wires, black wires grow on her head.
I have seen roses damasked, red and white,
But no such roses see I in her cheeks;
And in some perfumes is there more delight
Than in the breath that from my mistress reeks.
I love to hear her speak, yet well I know
That music hath a far more pleasing sound;
I grant I never saw a goddess go;
My mistress when she walks treads on the ground.
And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare
As any she belied with false compare

Balsa

8/2/2018 01:29:28 am

Thanks, didn’t know I should be ashamed of being shaped like a natural and now I am. :/

Bla31ze

2/10/2019 06:00:21 am

I do not always agree with Rachel’s views, but, as a Natural myself, I think that her description here is accurate.
I am not a “pure” Natural, but I have recently accepted I mostly belong there. It has not being easy. I thought I would never be memorable or elegant. Well, I have learnt that it is not necessarily true, and that my own type of beauty shines when I embrace my apparent Natural faults, when I stop trying to be someone I am not. Natural “ordinariness” is nothing to be ashamed of, in my opinion: it may not be an appealing word, but it helps focusing the point. The way Naturals attract people is by looking approachable, someone you can share something with, and that is not a less valuable asset than looking powerful or sexy and so on.

Mill

2/18/2019 05:55:39 pm

There seems to be a lot of what I would describe as vitriolic comments on here. I think if you look at this website overall, the ethos is truth, not false flattery. I also don't think naturals were anywhere described as inherently less sexually attractive or beautiful than any other style type. But people are reading it that way. The truth is not everyone is beautiful, and there will be a range of attractiveness (from not very attractive to highly attractive) within any style type. The purpose of the website is to help you look the best you can, and feel the best you can by accepting your 'look' without spending a fortune or resorting to plastic surgery. A person who identifies as wholly or partly natural in style will look their best when styled with natural design elements. That's all. Spare a thought for the insecurities all style types can feel; for example, being dramatic can mean a lot of masculinity in facial features for a woman, which society does not currently particularly favour etc. Its not the author's fault what style happens to be the cultural flavour of the decade.

5/4/2019 11:30:23 am

I have finally landed myself in the Soft Natural category, not so much for my physical features - though they are factors - as my comfort level. If I am not physically comfortable, if I am wearing anything that doesn’t flow, that restricts or restrains me in any way, then I am miserable. I gravitate to Natural, though I am a very Yin one, quite rounded and soft. I cannot wear D’s straight or angular lines nor R’s overtly sexy ones (shudder). I am not petite or gamine. I FEEL “not me” in those styles. I can get away with Soft Classic but Natural is where I FEEL best. I think I probably have a bit of Ethereal vibe, too. Anyway, just wanted to point out that the type of clothes in which you feel most yourself can be a good indication. Can I ride in the bed of a pickup truck in Levi’s and sneakers? Totally. Can I wear elegant, draped or slightly unconstructed clothes and still feel like myself, unselfconscious? Yes, definitely. I can’t say that about the other types. Our instincts tell us where Home is. :-)

Truth is Beauty

Style Identities: the NATURAL

Natural or Dramatic?

Natural or Classic?

Leave a Reply.

About Me...

Categories

Archives