Style as a Tool for Art Historical Analysis

Discussing 'style' as a tool for art historians through a collection of artworks.

As mentioned by James Ackerman in his journal article, ‘A Theory of Style’ (The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 1962), style can be broadly defined as ‘certain characteristics… that appear in other products of the same artist(s), era or locale’. In a more simplified manner, style can be defined as the characteristic ‘look’ of artworks by a certain artist, period or movement, where ‘look’ refers to visual compositional elements only.

Auguste Renoir, Bal du moulin de la Galette, oil on canvas, 131.5 x 176.5 cm, 1876, Musée d'Orsay, Paris

Ackerman further defines style in a clinical manner by calling ‘style’ as the solution to a bigger problem faced by artists. He creates the metaphor of a blank canvas (the problem) on which artists make their mark and over time through the process of rejection and adoption, an optimum solution comes forward as the finished painting. For example, one of the major problems faced by the Impressionists was the imposed academic art framework. Academic art had a rigid structure; rules and methods by which artists abided by leading them to create artworks that looked back to Greco-Roman Antiquity and Renaissance periods. So, the Impressionists broke free of this rigidity and adopted the freer, modern techniques such as quick, impasto brushstrokes or the plein air painting style. Subsequently, we must know that artists are always aware of their predecessors’ styles (as they regard them as either the ‘problem’ or the past additions to their ‘solution’) and their present artistic choices are, to an extent, influenced by those past artists. Thus, the progression of style is not individual or isolated but rather an amalgamation of various creative processes and choices of the past and present (which in turn affect the styles of the future).

Filippino Lippi, Descent from the Cross, oil on panel, 334 x 225 cm, 1504-07, Galleria dell'Accademia, Florence

Peter Paul Rubens, Descent from the Cross, oil on panel, 420.5 x 320 cm, 1612-14, Cathedral of Our Lady, Antwerp

Various styles have developed over time which urges us to constantly challenge the meaning and connotation of the word. Period styles are divisions of time marked by stylistic shifts in artistic traditions. For example, the visual characteristics of a Renaissance painting differ from that of the Baroque period; Descent from the Cross (on the Annunziata Polyptych) by Filippino Lippi (1506) is a Renaissance painting, with flat forms, rigid bodies forms and a two-dimensional approach, whereas the one by Paul Rubens (1612), shows dramatic imagery, intense colours and movement, is categorized as Baroque. Within these broad periods, classifications of sub-period styles also exist, namely the Renaissance style can be divided into the Early Renaissance and the High Renaissance where the latter sees a shift towards painting more naturalistic forms in. Sub-period styles are necessary to mark boundaries between each progressive stage within the style and allow us to break them down to avoid generalization.

Jacopo Tintoretto, Finding the Body of St Mark, oil on canvas, 405 x 405 cm, Pinacoteca di Brera, Milan

Artists active within a certain period may deviate from the dominant visual styles and create something completely different such as Mannerist paintings which were a response to the High Renaissance era. Tintoretto and Pontormo are iconic Mannerist painters and their paintings have proportional ambiguity and figural sensuality compared to the idealistic forms of the High Renaissance art. Furthermore, a more complicated issue arises when discussing individual styles. Despite being categorized as Mannerist painters, their styles of painting are significantly disparate from each other, presenting a complex problem to the categorization of their style.

Jacopo da Pontormo, Joseph sold to Potiphar, oil on wood, 61 x 51.6 cm, c. 1515, National Gallery, Londno

Nonetheless, recognising individual styles is useful for the practice of connoisseurship. Identifying unknown works of art and attributing them to certain artists, time periods or geographical locations helps art historians to expand their knowledge base and learn more about artists’ oeuvres, developments in the style of a period/movement etc.

Styles also vary from geographical locations as seen in Mond Crucifixion by Raphael (1503) which belongs to the Italian school and Isenheim Altarpiece by Matthias Grünewald (1515) from the German school. Additionally, these geographical styles can be divided into local schools; the Italian school can be organized into the disegno style (Michelangelo) and the colore style (Titian). Another example that showcases differing styles developing around the same time is the French Art Deco style (with its exaggerated ornamentation) and the German Bauhaus style (known for formal simplification).

Cai Guo-Qiang, Eucalyptus, Spotted Gum tree, 320 cm, Museum of Art, Brisbane

Therefore, the prominent utility of style in art-historical analysis is to categorize art on the basis of visual characteristics. Naturally, visuals vary with time, location and individual artists but grouping them into stylistic divisions help in an orderly study of art. However, this may only apply till a certain point in time. Contemporary artists, especially the ones belonging to the 21st century, and their artworks cannot be categorised into these broad and overarching divisions. For example, comparing two modern Chinese artists,

Ai Weiwei, Pequi Tree, cast iron, 320 cm, Serralves Museum, Porto

Ai Weiwei and Cai Guo-Qiang one can see that despite coming from the same geographical location, having similar cultural backgrounds and practising art in the same time period their artworks greatly differ from each other in stylistic value. Guo-Qiang’s artwork Eucalyptus (2013) and Ai Weiwei’s Iron Tree (2021) showcase the same subject matter, however, are visually, texturally and intentionally very different from each other. This poses a compound issue to the stylistic categorization of these works; how can we fit these two different artworks under one term such as ‘postmodern’?

Styles are generalized and exclusive categories. The popularized styles are usually western-centric which creates a biased ideology for art analysis. For example, James Elkin in the chapter ‘Intuitive Stories’ of his book Stories of Art, points this out by calling a Chinese incense burner ‘baroque’ in its features. Elkins highlights how western stylistic traits are applied to non-western artwork for comparative purposes, but the converse is not done.

In conclusion, stylistic analysis of artworks holds essential value much of past art tends to follow similar visual patterns. Visual analysis, connoisseurship and establishing relationships between different works of art (across artists, time and places) are some of the advantages of using style as a tool for art historical analysis. However, these stylistic demarcations begin to lose their importance once artists stop following the dominant artistic characteristics of the time. Additionally, as style depends primarily on visual traits, stylistic analysis brings attention to the formal qualities of artworks only. Styles are also ignorant of ‘outlying’ artists and the art of other cultures. Therefore, style can be considered a substantial tool for art-historical analysis and should be used while surveying artworks. However, it should not be the only concept used for analysing artworks as it has its limitations and should be used in combination with other methods.