Wow — thank you so much, that’s incredibly kind. Thanks Xue. I’m really glad it resonated.
And yes, I agree with you. I’m definitely not arguing for purely utilitarian clothes — gosh, that'd be a sad day. I think most of us are looking for pieces that bring a bit of joy and visual interest. I guess I just wanted to shine some light on how good design should be able to do that and work in the realities of our lives. When those two things get framed as opposites, that’s when the logic starts to wobble a bit.
Meg, you perfectly explained why I’ve been feeling so confused about the CP scale and the idea that creativity is the opposite of pragmatism. I’ve just finished the book and I’m quite new to Tibi concepts, but it never made sense to me why the two couldn’t go hand in hand. As someone who always prioritizes function and what works for my real life and personal constraints, it sometimes made me feel like I wasn’t pushing the creative side when in reality I’m just looking for pieces that balance both.
That’s really interesting to hear — especially from someone coming to the Tibi concepts fresh through the book. I can see how the CP scale might leave people with that feeling, even though I don’t think that’s actually the spirit of what Tibi is trying to encourage. I mean, maybe that's why Amy is C5P5 - ie. perfect balance ;)
And I completely agree with you: prioritising function and working with your real-life constraints doesn’t mean you’re not pushing the creative side. In a lot of ways it’s the opposite. It just means you’re looking for the version of the idea that actually works in your life — which, to me, is where the most satisfying design tends to live.
Honestly, those pieces that manage to both feel interesting and slot seamlessly into your real week are real keepers.
I enjoyed this a lot as a counterargument to creative pragmatism—what you laid out makes a lot of sense. Thinking about my own wardrobe, I definitely have a few pieces that plot more toward that bottom right quadrant, and the only reason why they “work” in my wardrobe as tools for creative expression or “zha zha” is that my life allows for movement on that scale of practicality; for instance, a purse that’s wildly colorful and beautifully beaded but also impractically small and old (so I baby it more) is still useful because there are days when I’m not impeded by the constraint of carrying my keys in my hand. Another example: a simple skirt, easy to wear, elastic waist, but the fabric is white and quite sheer and wrinkly: it “works” because there are days when, socially, I’m comfortable enough to present that way (on a summer day at the park, say, rather than at church). Anyways, all this to say, I’m picking up what you’re putting down! (Also, I kept thinking about Mies van der Rohe’s Farnsworth house the whole time 😅)
Angela, this is such a great articulation of the “movement” piece — thank you. Your examples capture exactly what I was trying to get at: a piece can sit bottom-right on the chart in theory, but whether it works depends so much on the life around it. That beaded bag is a perfect example — if your day allows a bit of looseness around carrying things, suddenly the constraint-fit shifts.
Same with the white skirt: the piece hasn’t changed, but the social context has. Wearability is relational, not fixed. That really resonates for me too.
And yes — Farnsworth House! 😅 Exactly. Visually and conceptually, it’s chef’s kiss (imo), but eek if you actually want to live in it! A great “pushed vs lived experience” case study.
Really appreciate you sharing those examples — they bring a bit more life to my little diagram 🙏
I've spent most of my life integrating good design with functionality. When you add the best price, you have the recipe for the company I worked for 😉Design + Function + Price we called Democratic Design, ALL in one. You explained it all beautifully, with elegance and simplicity. No skirt becomes a zha zha just because of its color and clever design, when the material it's made of is non-breathable and sweat runs down my legs.
Pola, your sweaty-skirt example is exactly the kind of real-life constraint I had in mind while writing this. A piece can be visually clever, beautifully styled, even very “zha zha”… but if the fabric turns it into an ordeal the minute the temperature rises, then it’s not going to be a valuable piece.
And Angela, I think you’re onto something with the social media point. I know I get a huge amount of inspiration from images online, and I love that side of it. But then it’s very easy for the image to do the heavy lifting, and for the practical realities of wearing the thing in an actual day to drop out of view. I guess this post was trying to unpick some of that tension between styling-as-image and dressing-for-life that it sometimes feels like we’re encouraged (?) to discount.
What I keep coming back to is that good design should hold up under both lenses. It should be visually interesting and able to live in the conditions of someone’s real life. When those two line up = magic :)
Pola, your comment got me thinking (and laughing at the sweaty skirt example): how much of this disconnect is because of social media? I’m beginning to think that there are some who use the fashion niche on social media as styling inspiration (🙋♀️) and some who actually use it more for art appreciation. I often see outfits that lots and lots of people Like online, but then that same outfit has me wondering “How will this work when you need to pee?” 😂
Oh, and just fyi, I do believe some of those Pinterest images are AI (the egg skirt, the vegetable bag), not that that necessarily disproves your point!
Yes - good point, thank you, I need to state that. I wasn’t thinking so much of here’s a list of concrete examples of some bad designers out there, rather here’s some visuals to reinforce the point about poor functionality. But point taken, we need to know what’s real and what’s not in this new AI reality 😊
This reframe stopped me in my tracks...especially the distinction between pushed and pared-back. I'd bought into the CP scale completely and hadn't interrogated it until I read this. The architecture analogy made it click in a way nothing else had. Thank you!
After writing into the void, it’s just the nicest to find that ideas resonate with others or spark further conversations and discussions. So glad this piece made it to you and that you could take something from it. Thanks for stopping by ☺️
That means a lot to hear. Your piece gave me language for something I’d been feeling but couldn’t name. It sparked a lot of thinking I’m still working through. Really glad I found your work.
Meg, thank you for all the work, time and effort that went into this in-depth analysis. I enjoyed your reasoning and your personal perspective. Early on in my Tibi journey - some 5-6 years ago - a fashion professional told me: 'remember that whatever Tibi does is marketing'. It has helped me enormously to stay sane and alert while consuming all Tibi related content. But it is still there so that people buy. It's not some universal knowledge. And I'm sure it's easier for everybody involved to follow a certain set of rules, guidelines, terms and definitions. It helps my adhd and peri-menopausal brain too ;)
Thank you so much Ewelina — that’s really kind. And yes, I think that’s exactly right: it’s both genius marketing and genuinely helpful in making styling and design thinking feel more accessible to people. Those two things can absolutely coexist.
I think the key is just to keep both in view. It’s a business, not an education platform, so of course there’s a buyer-beware element. But that doesn’t mean the ideas and tools can’t still be genuinely instructive, including in progressing our debates on personal style.
This is such a great read! thank you for all the effort you put into this, it's truly brilliant.
I work with a lot of women who don’t want dry clean only pieces (for example), they have busy lives but still want to feel good in what they wear.
Some of my favourite pieces are also my most practical ones, so I don’t really buy into the whole “creative pragmatism” idea. It feels more like a marketing strategy than anything else.
Thanks so much Noelia, really appreciate your kind words and so glad it resonated.
And I’m so with you, many of my most loved (and frequently worn) are super wearable and - in my mind at least - more creative than dull! I think having the lived experience of those key pieces doing overtime in my own wardrobe really made the CP scale feel a little redundant. You and me both, by the sounds of it!
Thank you for this very thoughtful piece - it gave words to the approach that I intuitively use in building a wardrobe. I’m wondering, would you place the “color” metric in the y or x axis. The whole “color season” theory seems to render color as a constraint-fit category, while my own attachment to certain colors outside of my color season seems to suggest it plays a role in why something inspires us. Maybe both?
Thanks so much for commenting — and apologies, I missed this earlier!
About colour: such an interesting question. I really do think colour play, and especially colour combinations, are part of flexing our creative muscles.
I also think colour can absolutely operate across both axes. At different times and in different contexts, colour can read as pushed (fluoro in a corporate workplace, for instance) or pared back (neutrals, muted tones, etc.). The same goes for colour combinations, but again, so much of that is time- and place-specific. There was a time when pink + red or navy + black really felt against the grain; not anymore.
Likewise on the wearability scale, white can be deeply impractical on a wet city commute, but entirely wearable on a super hot summer day at the beach.
So yes, I think colour really is working across both metrics. And perhaps part of the complication is that colour is never just one thing. Pairings, context, material, proportion… they all shift how colour reads and functions. I was actually thinking about exactly this recently here too: https://architectsplay.substack.com/p/colour-doesnt-sit-still
The essay does something genuinely useful: it digs into what “practicality” actually means in the context of clothing, refusing to let it remain a vague opposite of “creative.” By breaking it down into constraint-fit—mobility, maintenance, comfort, real-world usability—it clears the ground for a better conversation.
It really lands is in recognizing that constraints aren’t the enemy of expression; they’re what expression works within. The most interesting style choices often come from solving for real limits, not ignoring them. That’s true in architecture, as the author notes, and it’s true in a wardrobe.
If anything, the argument could push further on the social side: what counts as “practical” isn’t just individual circumstance... it’s shaped by shared norms, invisible expectations, and who gets to declare something “impractical” without consequence. But as a reframing, it’s a solid step away from the tired creativity-vs-practicality binary.
Thank you — I think you’re right to point to the social layer. What we call “practical” often carries an embedded, sometimes invisible set of expectations about what’s acceptable, appropriate, possible, even. I do think that relationship between constraint and expectation is really interesting (and blurry). Always more to think about 😊
This was a great read - thank you! And I think the architectural analogy is a great one because most people have an understanding of when a house/building does/doesn’t function in the way it should. A classic style example is the addition of pockets in women’s clothing - often no or very little impact on visual aesthetics but adds practicality points! Also, as a scientist, I loved your ternary plot with scalable data points! Great data visualisation!
Thanks so much Hannah, I’m so glad it speaks to the pocket-appreciating scientists ☺️ and I agree, just give us usable pockets—surely it’s not too much to ask!?!
This was a GREAT read - thank you for sharing your perspective! I like to think of myself as quite utilitarian in a way. I LOVE fashion though I feel like at the end of the day, things have to work for your lifestyle. It can be pushed, yes, but if you need to look polished, or need to have movement etc, then there'll be things that you might choose to avoid as it feels antithesis to that. It's not to say that you can have fun or that you will have a boring wardrobe as a result - as I don't think that's to be the case at all (because the fun might come in the colour, the texture etc). Your scale - perfectly captures this! Thank you!
Thank you Jamie - that's very kind! I think our approaches may have strong parallels ;) I think that pull between what a wardrobe needs to do and how we want it to feel is exactly where there is space for things to get interesting. As you say, it’s not about making everything more sensible; it’s about knowing where to place the interest so the clothes still work with your life, not against it.
Oh wow, I loved this perspective. Thank you for laying it out so clearly. I am absolutely of the same belief that pragmatism should be built in to creativity and vice versa, not on opposite ends of the spectrum from each other.
Oh thanks for the kind words Sophie ☺️ - so glad it struck a cord! Tibi’s scale with C10-C01, P01-P10 (ie C scaling down as P scales up) by my reading really implies a co-dependency, whether or not they really intend that.
As a designer, I love how you’ve summarized how constraints challenge us towards creativity (while not ignoring the brief). Tibi are great marketers but I can’t be convinced that fuzzy shoes or pants that drag on the ground will work for me. It is hard for me not to get sucked in and ”invest” in something Tibi because I love Amy’s concepts.
Thanks Joy! And I hear you, they know what they’re doing! For me, they got it right enough that I’ve got to really check myself to avoid what would be many mistakes for me 😉
Tibi doesn’t do a good job of explaining this, and the diagram you share isn’t helping since so many sum to, or close to 10, but Creative and Pragmatic are supposed to be two axes in Tibi. Meaning, it entirely possible to be C10 P10!
That’s interesting — and if Creative and Pragmatic were treated as two fully independent axes on the CP scale, you could absolutely land at C10/P10.
My reading mostly comes from how Amy Smilovic applies it in the Tibi Style Classes, where she tends to talk about people “sitting” at a point on the slider — so a C10 usually implies a low P value. For me, the way the scale gets discussed still subtly reinforces the idea that more “creative” pieces will be less wearable. That’s the interpretation I was responding to.
If we treat them as independent variables, though, it opens up a slightly different set of questions about what the P axis is actually measuring.
By chance the Tibi Style Class this week focused on the CP scale. There was a few mentions of leaning creative OR pragmatic. My impression was of a sliding scale, not independent variables. I'm curious if you saw it, how it resonated?
Really gave me something to think about. And you're right, the best design incorporate both! I'm inspired to keep looking for those pieces that combine both creativity and still work within the constraints of our lives. Because a lot of the time it's just not feasible to dismiss those.
Thanks Sigrid! I think that’s the fun of it, actually — the hunt for the version of the idea where the design holds up to everyday realities and still makes you feel something.
Ooh, this makes so much sense. Side note - I stumbled across that Toteme parachute skirt recently and it's been living in my head rent-free ever since. Do you mind me asking how tall you are please? Trying to get a feel for length!
Thank you! I adore this skirt and have worn it so much more than I’d anticipated. I’m 5’8 (size 34 is 37 inches long). The Toteme website has exact measurements for waist, hips and length - if you click through the ‘size guide’ and then click through on the size itself. Hope that helps. I just saw they’ve released new colourways too! https://int.toteme.com/products/parachute-skirt-stone-1
If I could I would restack every line. You articulated far more eloquently what I tried to say in comments to Asta’s posts.
I do think some people lean too much into practicality. Eg staying in sweatpants or leggings all day if they’re wfh before it’s the easiest.
But I find Tibi often uses it to excuse poor design or quality.
Wow — thank you so much, that’s incredibly kind. Thanks Xue. I’m really glad it resonated.
And yes, I agree with you. I’m definitely not arguing for purely utilitarian clothes — gosh, that'd be a sad day. I think most of us are looking for pieces that bring a bit of joy and visual interest. I guess I just wanted to shine some light on how good design should be able to do that and work in the realities of our lives. When those two things get framed as opposites, that’s when the logic starts to wobble a bit.
Indeed. Amazing design is form and function.
And thanks for all your notes - you're a hype woman like no other!! ☺️
Meg, you perfectly explained why I’ve been feeling so confused about the CP scale and the idea that creativity is the opposite of pragmatism. I’ve just finished the book and I’m quite new to Tibi concepts, but it never made sense to me why the two couldn’t go hand in hand. As someone who always prioritizes function and what works for my real life and personal constraints, it sometimes made me feel like I wasn’t pushing the creative side when in reality I’m just looking for pieces that balance both.
That’s really interesting to hear — especially from someone coming to the Tibi concepts fresh through the book. I can see how the CP scale might leave people with that feeling, even though I don’t think that’s actually the spirit of what Tibi is trying to encourage. I mean, maybe that's why Amy is C5P5 - ie. perfect balance ;)
And I completely agree with you: prioritising function and working with your real-life constraints doesn’t mean you’re not pushing the creative side. In a lot of ways it’s the opposite. It just means you’re looking for the version of the idea that actually works in your life — which, to me, is where the most satisfying design tends to live.
Honestly, those pieces that manage to both feel interesting and slot seamlessly into your real week are real keepers.
I enjoyed this a lot as a counterargument to creative pragmatism—what you laid out makes a lot of sense. Thinking about my own wardrobe, I definitely have a few pieces that plot more toward that bottom right quadrant, and the only reason why they “work” in my wardrobe as tools for creative expression or “zha zha” is that my life allows for movement on that scale of practicality; for instance, a purse that’s wildly colorful and beautifully beaded but also impractically small and old (so I baby it more) is still useful because there are days when I’m not impeded by the constraint of carrying my keys in my hand. Another example: a simple skirt, easy to wear, elastic waist, but the fabric is white and quite sheer and wrinkly: it “works” because there are days when, socially, I’m comfortable enough to present that way (on a summer day at the park, say, rather than at church). Anyways, all this to say, I’m picking up what you’re putting down! (Also, I kept thinking about Mies van der Rohe’s Farnsworth house the whole time 😅)
Angela, this is such a great articulation of the “movement” piece — thank you. Your examples capture exactly what I was trying to get at: a piece can sit bottom-right on the chart in theory, but whether it works depends so much on the life around it. That beaded bag is a perfect example — if your day allows a bit of looseness around carrying things, suddenly the constraint-fit shifts.
Same with the white skirt: the piece hasn’t changed, but the social context has. Wearability is relational, not fixed. That really resonates for me too.
And yes — Farnsworth House! 😅 Exactly. Visually and conceptually, it’s chef’s kiss (imo), but eek if you actually want to live in it! A great “pushed vs lived experience” case study.
Really appreciate you sharing those examples — they bring a bit more life to my little diagram 🙏
Thank you for your unique POV! It was good food for thought for sure.
I've spent most of my life integrating good design with functionality. When you add the best price, you have the recipe for the company I worked for 😉Design + Function + Price we called Democratic Design, ALL in one. You explained it all beautifully, with elegance and simplicity. No skirt becomes a zha zha just because of its color and clever design, when the material it's made of is non-breathable and sweat runs down my legs.
Pola, your sweaty-skirt example is exactly the kind of real-life constraint I had in mind while writing this. A piece can be visually clever, beautifully styled, even very “zha zha”… but if the fabric turns it into an ordeal the minute the temperature rises, then it’s not going to be a valuable piece.
And Angela, I think you’re onto something with the social media point. I know I get a huge amount of inspiration from images online, and I love that side of it. But then it’s very easy for the image to do the heavy lifting, and for the practical realities of wearing the thing in an actual day to drop out of view. I guess this post was trying to unpick some of that tension between styling-as-image and dressing-for-life that it sometimes feels like we’re encouraged (?) to discount.
What I keep coming back to is that good design should hold up under both lenses. It should be visually interesting and able to live in the conditions of someone’s real life. When those two line up = magic :)
Pola, your comment got me thinking (and laughing at the sweaty skirt example): how much of this disconnect is because of social media? I’m beginning to think that there are some who use the fashion niche on social media as styling inspiration (🙋♀️) and some who actually use it more for art appreciation. I often see outfits that lots and lots of people Like online, but then that same outfit has me wondering “How will this work when you need to pee?” 😂
It all started when dressing was replaced by styling 😜
Oh, and just fyi, I do believe some of those Pinterest images are AI (the egg skirt, the vegetable bag), not that that necessarily disproves your point!
Yes - good point, thank you, I need to state that. I wasn’t thinking so much of here’s a list of concrete examples of some bad designers out there, rather here’s some visuals to reinforce the point about poor functionality. But point taken, we need to know what’s real and what’s not in this new AI reality 😊
This reframe stopped me in my tracks...especially the distinction between pushed and pared-back. I'd bought into the CP scale completely and hadn't interrogated it until I read this. The architecture analogy made it click in a way nothing else had. Thank you!
After writing into the void, it’s just the nicest to find that ideas resonate with others or spark further conversations and discussions. So glad this piece made it to you and that you could take something from it. Thanks for stopping by ☺️
That means a lot to hear. Your piece gave me language for something I’d been feeling but couldn’t name. It sparked a lot of thinking I’m still working through. Really glad I found your work.
Meg, thank you for all the work, time and effort that went into this in-depth analysis. I enjoyed your reasoning and your personal perspective. Early on in my Tibi journey - some 5-6 years ago - a fashion professional told me: 'remember that whatever Tibi does is marketing'. It has helped me enormously to stay sane and alert while consuming all Tibi related content. But it is still there so that people buy. It's not some universal knowledge. And I'm sure it's easier for everybody involved to follow a certain set of rules, guidelines, terms and definitions. It helps my adhd and peri-menopausal brain too ;)
Thank you so much Ewelina — that’s really kind. And yes, I think that’s exactly right: it’s both genius marketing and genuinely helpful in making styling and design thinking feel more accessible to people. Those two things can absolutely coexist.
I think the key is just to keep both in view. It’s a business, not an education platform, so of course there’s a buyer-beware element. But that doesn’t mean the ideas and tools can’t still be genuinely instructive, including in progressing our debates on personal style.
Exactly what you said 👌🏼😇
This is such a great read! thank you for all the effort you put into this, it's truly brilliant.
I work with a lot of women who don’t want dry clean only pieces (for example), they have busy lives but still want to feel good in what they wear.
Some of my favourite pieces are also my most practical ones, so I don’t really buy into the whole “creative pragmatism” idea. It feels more like a marketing strategy than anything else.
Thanks so much Noelia, really appreciate your kind words and so glad it resonated.
And I’m so with you, many of my most loved (and frequently worn) are super wearable and - in my mind at least - more creative than dull! I think having the lived experience of those key pieces doing overtime in my own wardrobe really made the CP scale feel a little redundant. You and me both, by the sounds of it!
Thank you for this very thoughtful piece - it gave words to the approach that I intuitively use in building a wardrobe. I’m wondering, would you place the “color” metric in the y or x axis. The whole “color season” theory seems to render color as a constraint-fit category, while my own attachment to certain colors outside of my color season seems to suggest it plays a role in why something inspires us. Maybe both?
Thanks so much for commenting — and apologies, I missed this earlier!
About colour: such an interesting question. I really do think colour play, and especially colour combinations, are part of flexing our creative muscles.
I also think colour can absolutely operate across both axes. At different times and in different contexts, colour can read as pushed (fluoro in a corporate workplace, for instance) or pared back (neutrals, muted tones, etc.). The same goes for colour combinations, but again, so much of that is time- and place-specific. There was a time when pink + red or navy + black really felt against the grain; not anymore.
Likewise on the wearability scale, white can be deeply impractical on a wet city commute, but entirely wearable on a super hot summer day at the beach.
So yes, I think colour really is working across both metrics. And perhaps part of the complication is that colour is never just one thing. Pairings, context, material, proportion… they all shift how colour reads and functions. I was actually thinking about exactly this recently here too: https://architectsplay.substack.com/p/colour-doesnt-sit-still
The essay does something genuinely useful: it digs into what “practicality” actually means in the context of clothing, refusing to let it remain a vague opposite of “creative.” By breaking it down into constraint-fit—mobility, maintenance, comfort, real-world usability—it clears the ground for a better conversation.
It really lands is in recognizing that constraints aren’t the enemy of expression; they’re what expression works within. The most interesting style choices often come from solving for real limits, not ignoring them. That’s true in architecture, as the author notes, and it’s true in a wardrobe.
If anything, the argument could push further on the social side: what counts as “practical” isn’t just individual circumstance... it’s shaped by shared norms, invisible expectations, and who gets to declare something “impractical” without consequence. But as a reframing, it’s a solid step away from the tired creativity-vs-practicality binary.
Thank you — I think you’re right to point to the social layer. What we call “practical” often carries an embedded, sometimes invisible set of expectations about what’s acceptable, appropriate, possible, even. I do think that relationship between constraint and expectation is really interesting (and blurry). Always more to think about 😊
This was a great read - thank you! And I think the architectural analogy is a great one because most people have an understanding of when a house/building does/doesn’t function in the way it should. A classic style example is the addition of pockets in women’s clothing - often no or very little impact on visual aesthetics but adds practicality points! Also, as a scientist, I loved your ternary plot with scalable data points! Great data visualisation!
Thanks so much Hannah, I’m so glad it speaks to the pocket-appreciating scientists ☺️ and I agree, just give us usable pockets—surely it’s not too much to ask!?!
This was a GREAT read - thank you for sharing your perspective! I like to think of myself as quite utilitarian in a way. I LOVE fashion though I feel like at the end of the day, things have to work for your lifestyle. It can be pushed, yes, but if you need to look polished, or need to have movement etc, then there'll be things that you might choose to avoid as it feels antithesis to that. It's not to say that you can have fun or that you will have a boring wardrobe as a result - as I don't think that's to be the case at all (because the fun might come in the colour, the texture etc). Your scale - perfectly captures this! Thank you!
Thank you Jamie - that's very kind! I think our approaches may have strong parallels ;) I think that pull between what a wardrobe needs to do and how we want it to feel is exactly where there is space for things to get interesting. As you say, it’s not about making everything more sensible; it’s about knowing where to place the interest so the clothes still work with your life, not against it.
Oh wow, I loved this perspective. Thank you for laying it out so clearly. I am absolutely of the same belief that pragmatism should be built in to creativity and vice versa, not on opposite ends of the spectrum from each other.
Oh thanks for the kind words Sophie ☺️ - so glad it struck a cord! Tibi’s scale with C10-C01, P01-P10 (ie C scaling down as P scales up) by my reading really implies a co-dependency, whether or not they really intend that.
As a designer, I love how you’ve summarized how constraints challenge us towards creativity (while not ignoring the brief). Tibi are great marketers but I can’t be convinced that fuzzy shoes or pants that drag on the ground will work for me. It is hard for me not to get sucked in and ”invest” in something Tibi because I love Amy’s concepts.
Thanks Joy! And I hear you, they know what they’re doing! For me, they got it right enough that I’ve got to really check myself to avoid what would be many mistakes for me 😉
Tibi doesn’t do a good job of explaining this, and the diagram you share isn’t helping since so many sum to, or close to 10, but Creative and Pragmatic are supposed to be two axes in Tibi. Meaning, it entirely possible to be C10 P10!
That’s interesting — and if Creative and Pragmatic were treated as two fully independent axes on the CP scale, you could absolutely land at C10/P10.
My reading mostly comes from how Amy Smilovic applies it in the Tibi Style Classes, where she tends to talk about people “sitting” at a point on the slider — so a C10 usually implies a low P value. For me, the way the scale gets discussed still subtly reinforces the idea that more “creative” pieces will be less wearable. That’s the interpretation I was responding to.
If we treat them as independent variables, though, it opens up a slightly different set of questions about what the P axis is actually measuring.
Circling back to this reading of the CP scale...
By chance the Tibi Style Class this week focused on the CP scale. There was a few mentions of leaning creative OR pragmatic. My impression was of a sliding scale, not independent variables. I'm curious if you saw it, how it resonated?
Link to the the Style Class YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9tcZGP-c-g
Yes yes yes!!!
Really gave me something to think about. And you're right, the best design incorporate both! I'm inspired to keep looking for those pieces that combine both creativity and still work within the constraints of our lives. Because a lot of the time it's just not feasible to dismiss those.
Thanks Sigrid! I think that’s the fun of it, actually — the hunt for the version of the idea where the design holds up to everyday realities and still makes you feel something.
Ooh, this makes so much sense. Side note - I stumbled across that Toteme parachute skirt recently and it's been living in my head rent-free ever since. Do you mind me asking how tall you are please? Trying to get a feel for length!
Thank you! I adore this skirt and have worn it so much more than I’d anticipated. I’m 5’8 (size 34 is 37 inches long). The Toteme website has exact measurements for waist, hips and length - if you click through the ‘size guide’ and then click through on the size itself. Hope that helps. I just saw they’ve released new colourways too! https://int.toteme.com/products/parachute-skirt-stone-1
Thank you!!