Is art best understood as style ?

At some point in the Theory of Knowledge (ToK) course, every student encounters the fundamental question: What is art? This question is crucial, not only within ToK but also in broader philosophical and aesthetic discussions. In this post, we will explore how art can be understood through the concept of style, critically examining whether style is a useful tool for defining artistic knowledge.

The Object vs. the Viewer-Knower Debate

A central debate in aesthetics concerns whether art exists in the object or in the viewer-knower. If art is defined by the viewer-knower, then its artistic status depends on the knowledge and context brought by the audience. This perspective considers factors such as:

- The identity of the artist

- The historical and cultural context

- The financial and social value of the work

On the other hand, if art is defined by the characteristics of the object, then an artwork’s formal qualities determine its status as art. Consider Maurizio Cattelan’s Comedian (2019), a banana duct-taped to a wall. If we accept the viewer-knower perspective, Comedian is art because institutions, collectors, and audiences recognised it as such. If we take the object-centred perspective, we must identify intrinsic artistic qualities in the banana and tape—just as we do with Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa or Michelangelo’s David.

The Role of Style in Defining Art

One way to argue that art is defined by the object is through the concept of style. Art historians such as Clive Bell and Clement Greenberg emphasised that artistic value lies in formal aesthetic qualities rather than external interpretation.

Key Theorists on Style:

- Clive Bell (Art, 1914) introduced the concept of **significant form**, arguing that art is defined by the arrangement of lines, colours, and shapes that evoke an aesthetic emotion.

- Clement Greenberg (Modernist Painting, 1960) argued that art’s value lies in its formal aesthetic qualities, independent of meaning or context.

If we accept that art is defined by formal characteristics, then style becomes a useful classification system. But what is style?

Defining Style: Meyer Schapiro vs. Erwin Panofsky

Art historian Meyer Schapiro defined style as:

“The constant form—and sometimes the constant elements, qualities and expression—in the art of an individual or a group.”

This definition suggests that style is an objective feature of artistic knowledge, linking an artwork to a knowledge community through identifiable formal characteristics. However, Schapiro was criticised by Erwin Panofsky, who argued that style must also incorporate the meaning of the object.

A good example is Bernini’s The Ecstasy of St. Teresa (1647–52), often classified as Baroque. John Law (Assembling the Baroque) argues that its dramatic composition, movement, and interplay of light and shadow fit the Baroque style. However, its spiritual meaning—depicting St. Teresa’s divine ecstasy—also contributes to its classification as Baroque. Here, style is not purely an aesthetic category but also an interpretative framework.

Case Studies: Comparing Hopper and Manet

Nighthawks. Edward Hopper (1942)

Edward Hopper’s Nighthawks (1942) - Modernist Style

Hopper’s painting is often classified as Modernist because it:

- Depicts ordinary people instead of elites or religious figures

- Features simplified geometric compositions and sharp lines

- Has a flat, two-dimensional quality

The formal qualities of Nighthawks make it modernist, reinforcing the idea that style provides an objective means of defining artistic knowledge.

Édouard Manet’s A Bar at the Folies-Bergère (1882) - A Style Dilemma

Manet’s work is often associated with Impressionism, yet it differs from the light and colour emphasis of Monet’s Impression, Sunrise (1872). Some critics, such as Roger Fry, classified Manet as Post-Impressionist or even Expressionist. This demonstrates a limitation of style: art often does not fit neatly into one category.

The Problem with Defining Art by Style

If style is a set of ideal type characteristics, then many artworks do not fully fit into a single category. Consider:

- Hopper’s Nighthawks: Though often labelled modernist, its emotional depth challenges Greenberg’s notion that modernism should be autonomous and non-interpretative.

- Manet’s A Bar at the Folies-Bergère: Impressionist? Post-Impressionist? Expressionist? The classification depends on constructed labels rather than clear, objective features.

In ToK terms, style is a classification system developed by knowledge communities. It helps define artistic knowledge by grouping works into categories, but it is ultimately a human-constructed framework. If we changed our style categories (e.g., grouping all artworks into monochrome vs. polychrome), our understanding of artistic knowledge would shift entirely.

Conclusion: Is Style a Useful Tool for Defining Art?

Style provides a structured way to understand artistic knowledge, linking works through formal aesthetic qualities. However, because style categories are constructed rather than intrinsic, they do not provide absolute certainty in defining art.

Thus, while style is a useful classification system, it has limitations as a basis for defining artistic knowledge. Artistic knowledge is influenced by:

- The formal qualities of the object (aesthetic perspective)

- The interpretative meaning attributed by the viewer-knower (contextual perspective)

- The cultural and historical classification systems (constructed style categories)

This suggests that artistic knowledge is both objective and subjective, shaped by formal elements but ultimately interpreted through human knowledge frameworks.

What’s Next?

There are other ways to define artistic knowledge—through methodology, purpose, or even the tools used in artistic creation. But that’s a topic for another discussion! If you have ideas or questions, share them in the comments.

Thank you for reading, and as always—stay ToKTastic!

Daniel, Lisbon, Feb 2025