a question of genre ...and style

Thinking about genre vs style vs medium.

 

Genre belongs to the discipline (of art), e.g. portrait images.

 

Style belongs to the artist. A unique appearance of one's work.

 

Medium is the intervening means by which an artist realizes the work. e.g. oil, tempera, watercolor, encaustic, glass plate, polyester based film, instant film or CCD sensor.

 

Artists can work in different media, for example Leibovitz, whose work started in the film era and is now in the CCD sensor era. She has also worked in different genres (still life and portrait). However I posit that she works in one style, her own. It has evolved over time, and it remains uniquely hers.

 

Dürer worked in still life and with portraits. He worked in watercolor and was an engraver. His style is his own. Michelangelo was a painter, sculptor and more. His style belongs to him.

 

Agree? Disagree?

Agree? Disagree?

Both. ;-)

 

Dürer, as most artists, had an individual style and had a lot of effect on the German Renaissance. He, himself, was heavily influenced by his exposure to and study with Italian masters. I'm one who believes nobody's style is their own, even if it's personal and individual. I think influence, sharing, era, cooperation, and culture make style much more complicated than simple individual ownership.

Fred I agree that artists, and their styles, are influenced by those who went before them, and their contemporaries.

Interesting. I don't think its style VS genre. Genre to me, is just a stylistic way of using a French word for category. Style as we can see above is a whole other discussion. I don't think there's really much relationship between style and genre except in certain intersections that are the exception not the rule, like doing treatments photographically of old buildings that makes them look like older photographs almost becomes a genre in itself. But generally I think of genre as categories like portraits, landscape etc etc.

 

I don't have any quotes by other artists or thinkers regarding what is style or what is important about it. To me, style can mean anything from the formalistic treatment of work, all the way to the presentment of ones sensibilities through whatever medium they use. It can be on the surface, or it can be very deep. I've heard derogatory remarks such as "he's all style with no substance", to the the insult such as "he has no style". If one were to look at the work of Picasso let's say, he went through several stylistic periods, but at the end of the day, they all exhibited Picasso's uniqueness, his style.

 

I have a few friends who photograph several different genres. I might not be able to verbally define a style in them, yet I know those people's work and can generally tell their photos from anybody else's. There is something unique about their photographs. So to me, style is some innate quality of a person and how they see and experience and express through their work, the understanding of which often dissipates when trying to dissect it into definitions.

 

Lastly, I think there's hope for all who think its important to have a "style", because I've found if you stick with a passion long enough, you will at some point naturally develop or, discover your own expression. Don't you think?

Edited June 29, 2017 by Uhooru

Have a look at works by Titian, the Italian painter. His style changed significantly through his long, productive, career. His genre remained predominantly portraits and historical scenes.

 

It's important in my view to discern style in artists around you, and to be open to the development of one's own style. Being open to having your own style is part of growth as I see it.

Seems like a minority idea in this thread, but maybe genre and style aren't that unrelated. Yes, they're two different things, and yes, I think one artist can have a single style across multiple genres, or may develop multiple styles over the times within a single genre.

 

Yet, I think there can often be a play between style and genre, where one guides the other. It's pretty rare to see gritty, high contrast macro photography or low-key wedding photography. Being drawn to a particular genre, or developing a specific style will quite possibly also exclude other genres. Sure, this is following conventions and ideally one can break out of it, or play with it but most photographers I know shape their style according to the convential standard for the genre they like doing most. Those I know with a very recognisable style tend to specific genres where that style works best.

Sure, not always and not a hard rule, but while genre and style are different things, I think in the way we develop ourselves they cross and intertwine.

Wouter I agree with what I understand to be your point, which is that there are conventions, or normative styles, in genres.

 

For example, one normative style in portrait painting, and portrait photography, is diffuse light coming from above, and from the artist's left. Have a look through many paintings and photographs and this can be seen. I argue this is a normative style of lighting within the genre of portrait images. Many artists over time have used this type of lighting. When an artist uses this style, he or she is working well within the accepted conventions of the genre.

 

Another example within the genre of portrait images, is lighting from below and directly in front of the subject. This is unappealing to many people, but it is a style of portrait image lighting. Imagine a photographer who uses this lighting style again and again. He or she becomes known as the "lighting from below" guy or gal. It is part of his or her style and uniqueness. I argue that this example is a style, but not a normative one, within the portrait image genre.