within a limited range of study. Contemporary styles and art attest to a less rigid and transverse definition of style. The lines between periods and different styles are characteristically less distinct, blending and continuing throughout the spectrum of time and place. However, many times history plays a significant role in its conception and understanding. Only with time and some distance from past styles can one observe the similarities and differences of the old and the new forms of style, and that is why it isn’t easy to predict a future style in exaction. In light of the diverse theories to define style, Schapiro offers a broad, more stable criteria, and that is in looking at three aspects of art: form elements/motives, form relationships, and qualities or “expressions.” If works of art share these aspects, they also share a common language and “internal order” that connects them to a certain style. I would also tend toward these more general definitive criteria in placing a particular style to an artwork. I think that it is much easier to direct the relationship from the style to the art rather than have the artwork be placed within a particular style. Thus, in defining a style, it may be more effective to have it explain the art (having many parts and styles) instead of looking at the art to explain the style. This goes along with the idea that the feel of the whole is found in the small parts, and so looking at the details (works) helps the viewer or art historian understand the bigger picture (style). In looking at modern art for example, there exists an increasing stylistic variability and heterogeneous art style. This in turn leads to a more refined conception of style in that a shift occurs from the large to smaller forms as the whole or style becomes more complex as with modern art. The purpose of Schapiro’s essay for the art historian concerns its future. I think he is ca...
