Interpreting Art: Response To Ernst Gombrich’s Style

In approaching such a broad subject, Ernst Gombrich opens his argument with an equally broad statement: “Style is any distinctive, and therefore recognizable, way in which an act is performed or an artifact made or ought to be performed or made.” Grombrich then chisels away at this definition to provide a context and a redefinition of different ways the term “style” is used. Grombrich “conveniently grouped” these uses into two categories: descriptive and normative.

“Style” in the normative sense is seen as complementary; this style is without adjectives or descriptive terms but refers to a “desirable consistency”. Much like an experienced, skilled dancer might be said to have style, the dancer's skill is being described, not the style of dance.

The style of dance being performed is considered in the descriptive style. Descriptive style refers to a characteristic that quality defines the style or type of an art piece, artifact, or, in the case of the dancer, the performance being described. The dancer’s steady rhythm, twirls, and presence of a partner might be the characteristics that define the dancers’ descriptive style as Ballroom.

How could one state that these characteristics define Ballroom Dancing and not another style, such as Irish Step Dancing? Grombrich explains a point that, though plain, is instrumental in defining style: Style is all about different choices. In Grombrich’s terms: “The pivot of the whole theory of expressiveness is the concept of choice. There can be no question of style unless the speaker or writer has the possibility of choosing between alternative forms of expression.” To tell the two dances apart, for instance, they must have different characteristics.

The idea of expressiveness through a choice to be different goes clearly beyond dancers; this includes rebellious acts of piercings or tattoos, changing hair color, tempo, or key in music, or how realistic or abstracted an image might be. For a style to exist and be appreciated, another contrasting or opposite must also exist. Style implies an expressive choice; choice usually effected or determined by conforming to or resisting social and political agendas, and technological technological advancement.

These factors are what determine changes in style throughout different cultures and different periods of time. Grombrich addresses these changes and how certain styles have evolved into fashion. Fashion is a style with implications of prestige and the ability to choose what is considered fashion over what is not. This more often than not has to do with being able to afford a more expensive style. Objects from far-off places and more exotic, requiring more skill to make or were made from precious materials like gold or silk, became fashionable for their ability to show off one’s wealth, status or ability to acquire such rarities. This fashion has stayed intact for centuries and is still prevalent today. However, fashion today has evolved to include expensive items of clothing that are expensive for no visible reason; the showing off then resides in the name attached to the clothing or object.

Defining fashion within the art world is complex, maybe even impossible; artists rarely try to show off their wealth in their art; therefore, the question arises of whether fashion exists in the realm of art. I would compare the fashions of art to the idea of showing off via a brand name; fashion is, therefore, more about the ideas behind a piece than the look. The fashion in this case is academic, a competition of wit and innovation rather than wealth, which was perhaps born in the Enlightenment, continuing to today, where an increasing number of artists use scientific advancements to create work, and there is a significant movement to create concept-heavy works of art. This is merely a matter of style and not to do with fashion. However, the genius behind conceptual works is something rare, a privilege, and something to show off.

Besides fashion, style has been used to define works of art that share characteristics. The examples Grombrich includes, Romanesque and Baroque, suggest that these styles are not only defined by characteristics, but also by a region and a period of time. It is very common for art to be spoken of in periods of time and regions because there are inherently common traits in a culture's artwork. Still, I think this approach ignores some interesting theories of patterns and how similar imagery or methods have appeared in different places at different times, sometimes without the two cultures interacting. For the sake of being familiar with Art History, the binds to knowing stylistic periods by region and time are impossible to ignore. Still, conversations of common styles can become quite interesting when these restrictions are ignored.

Styles of art also complicate our value system in the ever-popular yet unanswered question: Who determines good art? There is no calculated way of judging art as opposed to mathematical judgement of Music and systematic judgment of the language in Literature. Artistic styles further complicate this lack of formula by providing a multitude of types of images and characteristics that have no official method of judgment. There is no method to compare styles with different goals. For example, 20th Century art lover will prefer originality rather than skill, while a connoisseur of Traditional Chinese art will favor skill as opposed to novel painting. 

Because of individual preferences, artistic and stylistic judgement depends heavily on individual preference and basis.