What is style in literature? Brief definition. What are text styles? Characteristics of speech styles
Style is the main element of speech. In essence, this is the “clothing” of the text, its design. And people's clothes speak volumes.
A man in a formal suit is probably a business worker, and a guy in sneakers and stretched sweatpants is either out to buy bread or is still an athlete.
Likewise, by the stylistic “clothing” of the text one can understand in what area it “works” - functions.
Tired of homework and essays?
Try your luck and maybe you will get lucky today. Just imagine how your life will change if you hit the jackpot :)In general, register - it's absolutely free. And then you decide for yourself how lucky you are.
Speaking scientifically, style is a system of various linguistic means and the ways in which they are organized, which has developed over the entire historical period of language development. The use of each of the existing systems is typical for a strictly defined sphere of communication between people: for example, the scientific sphere, official business, the sphere of media activity, fiction or spheres of communication in everyday life or on the Internet.
By the way, please note: in some sources text styles are called speech styles. Both phrases are the same thing.
Types of text (speech) styles
In the Russian language there have historically been four functional style. Later, the style of fiction emerged from the journalistic style.
Thus, there are currently five styles of speech:
How to distinguish one style from another? For example, a men's business suit is a combination of trousers, shirt, tie, jacket and shoes. And style is also a combination of certain “objects” - elements: words, sentences ( syntactic constructions) and text structure.
Characteristics of speech styles
So, how can you recognize the scientific style by “clothes”?
Rich expressive and emotional vocabulary. Metaphors and comparisons at every step. “Colorful” words are slang, abusive, outdated. Sentence structures that are easy to understand (“It was getting dark”). Bright author's position.
How to identify?
First of all, this is a style for everyday live communication between people. In writing, it is used when the author wants to establish a closer, personal contact with his readers. Personal notes on a blog, selling texts, notes with social networks etc. It is characterized by lively speech, pronounced expression, colloquial and colloquial words and phrases, colorfulness, high subjectivity and evaluativeness, repetitions, incomplete sentences. Sometimes obscene language is also used.
Thus, when working on a text, it is important to combine stylistic elements. Otherwise, you risk being left without a reader, and your manuscript being locked in the desk. Why? Are you going to apply for an office job in torn jeans and an elongated T-shirt? I think not.
So you shouldn’t write in a scientific style. However, in an artistic style you can use elements of each - scientific, conversational, journalistic... The main thing is to understand why you are doing this, for what purpose, what effect you want to achieve.
Therefore, in order not to look stupid, find out the features different styles, their elements and - learn to work with them.
And don’t forget – you are greeted by your clothes. And not only people, but also texts.
All materials posted on the site are intended for non-commercial use and are protected by the legislation of the Russian Federation (Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Part Four).
Copying is prohibited.
Partial citation of articles and training materials is possible only with the obligatory indication of the source in the form of an active link.
There are about 40 definitions of style. Here are some of them:
MM. Bakhtin: “Style is the implementation of a creative method in specific historical conditions, requiring a certain unity of methods of design and creation of text, processing of material.” Bakhtin points out the connection between method and style. Style is a specific manifestation of a creative method, and the method, let us recall, is general settings knowledge of reality, selection of its phenomena.
“Style is a state of the text that is considered either as a deviation from the norm, or as a result of choosing certain methods from possible ways creating text" This definition points to prerequisite originality of the text.
The definition given in LES (1987): “Style is a stable community of figurative system, means artistic expression, the principles of constructing a work, methods of representation, manifested in a tendency towards a certain range of topics, ideas, problems, conflicts that characterize the originality of the writer, direction, method, era.”
“Style is unity - basic ideological - artistic features, distinctive features, manifested in the creativity of writers and trends.”
“Style is a system of linguistic means and artistic techniques characteristic of an individual work or the entire work of a writer or movement.
In these definitions, style includes content categories. In the definition of V.V. Vinogradov, style means only the verbal, linguistic essence of style: “Style is a system of individual aesthetic use of means of verbal expression characteristic of a given period of development of fiction.”
In the definition of A.B. Esin also voiced only the formal features of style: “Style is the aesthetic unity of all elements of an artistic form, possessing a certain originality and expressing a certain content.”
For understanding S., what is essential is what is expressed in all formulations: style is a deeply original phenomenon. Style arises where we, on the one hand, feel typical, repeating internal patterns in the sphere of composition and choice artistic means, certain themes, conflicts, etc. In other words, the very idea of a stylistic form is the result of a generalization of some characteristic features, repeated in several works. Thus, in the works of classicism, the conflict between duty and feeling, which became typical, was repeated; in the works of Turgenev, a portrait of the “Turgenev girl” was drawn, whose features received clearer contours in each work. On the other hand, S. exists where the unique, individual, and deeply original appear. Style is felt when a writer has something of his own, special. Thus, S. includes both standard and individual forms. It arises on the basis of experience, one’s own, practical and experience that already exists in the practice of other writers. But this experience necessarily brings its own.. In turn, individual style can become a source of new standard forms of style - the style of directions, schools. For example, Nekrasov’s style was repeated in the experience of poets of the Nekrasov school and became standard. Standard style develops into a national one, because it carries a generalization.
Style is an aesthetic, and therefore evaluative, category. When we say that a work has a style, we mean that in it the artistic form has reached a certain aesthetic perfection. In this sense, S. is opposed, on the one hand, to stylelessness (the absence of any aesthetic meaning, the aesthetic inexpressiveness of an artistic form), and on the other, to epigonic stylization (the simple repetition of already found artistic effects).
Aesthetic impact work of art on the reader due to the presence of style. Like any aesthetically significant phenomenon, style can cause aesthetic controversy; To put it simply, you can like or dislike a style. This process occurs at the level of primary reader perception. Aesthetic evaluation is determined both by the objective properties of the image and by the characteristics of the perceiving consciousness - the recipient, which, in turn, are determined by a variety of factors: psychological and even biological properties of the individual, upbringing, previous aesthetic experience, etc. As a result various properties style excites either a positive or negative aesthetic emotion in the reader: someone likes a harmonious style and does not like disharmony, someone prefers brightness and colorfulness, and someone prefers calm restraint, someone likes simplicity and transparency in the style, for some, on the contrary, complexity and even confusion. Such aesthetic assessments at the level of primary perception are natural and legitimate, but they are not sufficient to comprehend style. We must take into account that any style, regardless of whether we like it or not, has objective aesthetic significance. Scientific comprehension of style is intended, first of all, to reveal and reveal this significance; show the unique beauty of a variety of styles. A developed aesthetic consciousness differs from an undeveloped one primarily in that it is capable of appreciating beauty and charm. more aesthetic phenomena (which, of course, does not exclude the presence of individual style preferences).
S. is associated with worldview. A new S. appears in Goethe and Schiller when they move on to romanticism. Style is a dynamic, changing phenomenon. Pushkin’s romance is characterized by a bright, figurative, “romantic” language. Pushkin the prose writer, the realist, writes differently, freeing prose from all expression.
S. is an expression of the aesthetic integrity of the work. This presupposes the subordination of all elements of the form to a single pattern, the presence of an organizing principle of S., which permeates the entire structure of the form. Thus, in “War and Peace,” the stylistic principle becomes antithesis, realized in every cell of the work and embodied in the pairing of images - spiritual and physical, war and peace, Russians and French, Moscow and St. Petersburg, Natasha and Helen, Kutuzov and Napoleon. Another stylistic principle of Tolstoy is attention to physical portrait details (small hands of Andrei Bolkonsky, radiant eyes of Princess Marya).
Since the text is not a separate, localized element, but is, as it were, diffused throughout the entire structure of the form, each point of the text, each fragment of it bears the imprint of the whole. Thanks to this, S. is identified by a separate episode: an experienced reader, well acquainted with a particular author, only needs to read a short passage to identify the author. The style is recognizable and can be reproduced on the basis of imitations, stylizations, and parodies.
The concept of “style” in literary criticism. The style of a literary work. Style functions, style carriers, style categories. The concept of the stylistic dominant of a work of art. Types of style dominants.
Style (from gr - a pointed stick for writing on tablets covered with wax) became used metonymically by Roman writers to designate the peculiarities of writing by a particular author. Features of the verbal structure of the pr-y. The aesthetic unity of all figurative and expressive details of the form of the pr-y, corresponding to its content, is style
STYLE- in literary criticism: a set of individual characteristics of artistic techniques (linguistic, rhythmic, compositional, etc.) or a certain work, or genre, or period of the writer’s work, determined by the content. For example, Gogol the satirist is characterized by comparisons of heroes with the world of domestic animals, tongue-tied speech of characters, attention in their appearance not to the eyes, but to the nose, anti-aesthetic actions (spit, sneezed), etc., which are connected together by the thought of the lack of spirituality of the people depicted ( “Dead Souls”, “How Ivan Ivanovich quarreled with Ivan Nikiforov and why”, etc.). In linguistics, the concept of S. is somewhat narrower (linguistic style).
G.N. PospelovSTYLE OF LITERARY WORKS
Word style(gr. stylos - a pointed stick for writing on tablets covered with wax) began to be used by Roman writers metonymically, to designate the peculiarities of written speech of a particular author. This word is still used in this meaning today. Many literary critics and linguists still believe that only the features of the verbal structure of a work should be called “style”.
But since the second half of the 18th century. the same word began to be used to describe the features of form in works of other types of art - sculpture, painting, architecture (in architecture, for example, Gothic, Romanesque, Moorish and other styles are distinguished). Thus, a broader, general art meaning of the word “style” was established. In this sense, it is not only possible, but also necessary, to be used in theory and in the history of fiction. It is necessary because the form of a literary work is not limited to its speech structure; it also has other aspects - substantive visualization and composition. All these aspects of the form in their unity can have one or another style.
There is also the opposite extreme in the use of this word. Some literary scholars believe that style is a property of a work of art as a whole - in the unity of its content and form. This understanding is not convincing. Can we say that the characters that the writer reproduces in the images of his work have a certain style, or those aspects and relationships of these characters in which he is especially interested and which he highlights, strengthens, develops by constructing the plot of the work and resolving its conflict? or that emotional attitude towards these aspects of characters, for example romantic or satirical, which the writer expresses through all components of the form of the work? Of course not. The content of the work in all these aspects has no style. The style has a figurative and expressive form of the work, completely and completely expressing its content, completely corresponding to it.
The form of works of art has a certain style precisely because of its imagery and expressiveness. A work in terms of its form is a system of images, consisting of many different subject and verbal semantic details, compositional and intonation-syntactic devices, and these figurative details and devices carry one or another ideological and emotional expressiveness. The aesthetic unity of all the image and expressive details of the form of a work corresponding to its content is style.
The perfection and completeness of style are distinguished to the greatest extent by works that have depth and clarity of problematics, and even more so with historical truthfulness of ideological orientation. The shallowness of the issues easily leads to a pile-up of random, internally unjustified plot episodes, subject details and character statements. All this deprives the form of the work of its aesthetic integrity.
But the dignity of content does not mechanically give rise to the dignity of form. To create a perfect form that matches the content, the writer needs, as already said, to show talent, ingenuity, and skill. What is also very important is the writer’s ability to rely on the creative achievements of his predecessors, to choose from the creative experience of his national literature and other national literatures the forms that best suit his own, original artistic ideas, and to rebuild them accordingly. To do this, the writer needs a broad literary and general cultural horizon. If the writer has neither great talent nor a broad creative outlook, works may arise with great merits in content, but not perfect in form, devoid of style. This is the “lag” between form and content.
But on the other hand, a literary and artistic form can also have independent aesthetic significance. This especially applies to the verbal side of the form, to artistic speech, which is of greatest importance in lyricism with its meditativeness and poetry. The poetic and verbal form is often extremely sophisticated and refined in its entire structure; it can, with its external aesthetic significance, seem to cover up the shallowness and insignificance of the content expressed in it. This is the “lag” of content from form. Such were, for example, many works of Russian decadent poetry late XIX- beginning of the 20th century
Literary works, distinguished by the artistry of their content and the corresponding perfection of form, always have a certain style that has developed under certain conditions of the development of national literature.
To judge a writer’s style, one must understand the patterns of historical development of national literatures.
The traditions of classical rhetoric and poetics, which formed the substantial body of manuals for the study of literature in the 19th century, were used (and supplanted) by the emerging scientific stylistics, which ultimately moved into the field of linguistics.
The linguistic orientation of the style was already assumed by ancient theory. Among the requirements for style formulated in the school of Aristotle was the requirement of “correctness of language”; the aspect of presentation associated with the “selection of words” (stylistics) was determined in the Hellenistic era.
In his Poetics, Aristotle clearly contrasted “words in common use,” which give clarity to speech, and various kinds unusual words that add solemnity to speech; the writer's task is in everyone when necessary find the right balance between the two.”
Thus, the division into “high” and “low” styles, which have a functional meaning, was established: “for Aristotle, “low” was business, scientific, extraliterary, “high” was decorated, artistic, literary; after Aristotle, they began to distinguish between high, medium and low styles.”
Quintilian, who summed up the stylistic research of ancient theorists, equates grammar with literature, transposing into the area of the former “the science of speaking correctly and the interpretation of poets.” Grammar, literature, and rhetoric form the language of fiction, which is studied by stylistics, closely interacting with the theory and history of poetic speech.
However, in late antiquity and the Middle Ages, there was already a tendency to recode the linguistic and poetological features of style (the laws of metrics, word usage, phraseology, the use of figures and tropes, etc.) into the plane of content, subject, theme, which was reflected in the doctrine of styles.
As P. A. Grintser notes in relation to “types of speech,” “for Servius, Donatus, Galfred of Vinsalva, John of Garland and most other theorists, the criterion for dividing into types was not the quality of expression, but the quality of the content of the work.
“Bucolics”, “Georgics” and “Aeneid” of Virgil were considered, respectively, as exemplary works of simple, middle and high styles, and in accordance with them, each style was assigned its own circle of heroes, animals, plants, their special names and place of action...” .
The principle of correspondence of style to the subject: “Style that corresponds to the topic” (N. A. Nekrasov) - clearly could not be reduced only to the “expression” of the linguistic plan, for example, to one degree or another of using Church Slavonicisms as a criterion for distinguishing between “calms” - high, mediocre and low.
Having applied these terms in his linguistic and cultural studies, M. V. Lomonosov, relying on Cicero, Horace, Quintilian and other ancient rhetoricians and poets, not only correlated the doctrine of styles with genre poetics in its verbal design (“Preface on the benefits of church books in Russian language", 1758), but also took into account the substantive significance associated with each genre (“memory of the genre”), which was predetermined by the communicability between the “linguistic” and “literary” styles. The concept of three styles received “practical relevance” (M. L. Gasparov) in the Renaissance and especially classicism, significantly disciplining the thinking of writers and enriching it with the whole complex of content-formal ideas that had accumulated by that time.
The predominant orientation of modern stylistics towards the linguistic aspect was not without reason challenged by G. N. Pospelov. Analyzing the definition of style accepted in linguistics - this is “one of the differential varieties of language, a language subsystem with a dictionary, phraseological combinations, turns and constructions... usually associated with certain areas of speech use,” the scientist noted in it “a mixture of the concepts of “language” and “ speeches."
Meanwhile, “style as a verbal phenomenon is not a property of language, but a property of speech resulting from the characteristics of the emotional and mental content expressed in it.”
V. M. Zhirmunsky, G. O. Vinokur, A. N. Gvozdev and others wrote about the need to distinguish between the spheres of linguistic and literary stylistics on various occasions. A circle of researchers also made themselves known (F. I. Buslaev, A. N. Vese - Lovsky, D.S. Likhachev, V.F. Shishmarev), who was inclined to include stylistics in the field of literary criticism, the general theory of literature, and aesthetics.
In discussions on this issue, a prominent place was occupied by the concept of V.V. Vinogradov, who asserted the need for a synthesis of “linguistic stylistics of fiction with general aesthetics and theory of literature.”
In the study of writing styles, the scientist proposed to take into account three main levels: “this is, firstly, the stylistics of the language... secondly, the stylistics of speech, i.e. different types and acts of public use of language; thirdly, the stylistics of fiction.”
According to V.V. Vinogradov, “the stylistics of language includes the study and differentiation of different forms and types of expressive and semantic coloring, which are reflected in the semantic structure of words and word combinations, in their synonymous parallelism and subtle semantic relationships, and in the synonymy of syntactic constructions, in their intonation qualities, variations in word arrangement, etc.”; the stylistics of speech, which is “based on the stylistics of language,” includes “intonation, rhythm... tempo, pauses, emphasis, phrasal emphasis,” monologue and dialogic speech, specificity of genre expression, verse and prose, etc.
As a result, “falling into the sphere of stylistics of fiction, the material of language stylistics and speech stylistics undergoes a new redistribution and new group in verbal and aesthetic terms, acquiring a different life and being included in a different creative perspective.”
At the same time, there is no doubt that a broad interpretation of the stylistics of fiction can “blur” the object of research - according to him, a multi-aspect study should be aimed at the literary style itself.
A typologically similar range of problems is associated with the relationship between style as a subject of literary criticism and style as a subject of art criticism. V.V. Vinogradov believes that “literary stylistics” sometimes adds to itself “specific tasks and points of view coming from theory and history fine arts, and in relation to poetic speech - from the field of musicology,” since it is “a branch of general art historical stylistics.” A. N. Sokolov, who consciously put style as an aesthetic category at the center of his research, tracing the development of the art historical understanding of style (in the works of I. Winkelmann, J. V. Goethe, G. V. F. Hegel, A. Riegl, Cohn-Wiener, G. Wölfflin and others), makes a number of significant methodological observations regarding the “elements” and “carriers” of style, as well as their “correlation”.
The researcher introduces the concept of style categories as “those most general concepts in which style is conceptualized as a specific phenomenon of art” - their list, obviously, can be continued. The style categories are: “the gravity of art towards strict or free forms”, “the size of a monument of art, its scale”, “the ratio of statics and dynamics”, “simplicity and complexity”, “symmetry and asymmetry”, etc.
In conclusion, preceding a more in-depth and targeted study of style, the characteristics of this concept will emphasize that its inherent complexity and multi-dimensionality arise from the very nature of the phenomenon, which changes over time and gives rise to more and more new approaches and methodological principles in the theory of studying style.
The question posed by A. N. Sokolov as an anticipation of the inevitable difficulties associated with the objective “dual unity” of style is still relevant: “As a phenomenon of verbal art, literary style correlates with artistic style. As a phenomenon of verbal art, literary style correlates with linguistic style.”
And universalizing in relation to all the diverse positions regarding the concept of “style” is the researcher’s conclusion: “Stylish unity is no longer a form, but the meaning of the form.”
Introduction to literary criticism (N.L. Vershinina, E.V. Volkova, A.A. Ilyushin, etc.) / Ed. L.M. Krupchanov. - M, 2005
Established art form. self-determination of an era, region, nation, social or creative. groups or departments personality. Closely related to aesthetics. self-expression and constituting the center, the subject of the history of literature and art, this concept, however, extends to all other types of people. activity, turning into one of the most important categories of culture as a whole, into a dynamically changing total sum of its specific history. manifestations.
S. is associated with concrete. types of creativity, taking on their heads. characteristics (“picturesque” or “graphic.”, “epic.” or “lyrical.” S.), with diff. social and everyday levels and functions of linguistic communication (C. “colloquial” or “business”, “informal” or “official.”); in the latter cases, however, the more impersonal and abstract concept of stylistics is more often used. S., although it is a structural generalization, is not faceless, but contains living and emotional. an echo of creativity. S. can be considered a kind of aerial superproduct, quite real, but imperceptible. The “airiness” and ideality of S. historically progressively intensifies from antiquity to the 20th century. Ancient, archaeologically recorded style formation is revealed in “patterns”, in sequence. rows of things, cultural monuments and their characteristic features(ornaments, processing techniques, etc.), which constitute not only purely chronological. chains, but also visual lines of prosperity, stagnation or decline. Ancient symbols are closest to the earth; they always (like the symbol “Egyptian” or “ancient Greek”) indicate the strongest possible connection with the definition. landscape, with types of power, settlement, and way of life characteristic only of this region. In more specific terms. approaching the subject, they clearly express the differences. craft skills (“red-figure” or “black-figure” S. ancient Greek vase painting). Iconographic style definition (closely linked to the canon) also originated in antiquity: the decisive factor is the k.-l. symbol fundamental to beliefs of this region or period (“animal” S. art of the Eurasian steppe, originally associated with totemism).
In classic and late antiquity of S., finding its modern. the name is separated from both the thing and the faith, turning into a measure of creativity. expressiveness as such. This happens in ancient poetics and rhetoric - along with the recognition of the need for variety of styles, which a poet or speaker needs to master for optimal impact on the perceiving consciousness, three types of such stylistic influence were most often distinguished: “serious” (gravis), “average” ( mediocris) and "simplified" (attenuatus). Regional S. are now beginning to soar above their geogr. soil: the words “Attic” and “Asian” no longer necessarily signify something created specifically in Attica or Asia Minor, but first of all “more strict” and “more flowery and lush” in its manner.
Despite the constant reminiscences of ancient rhetoric. understanding of S. in the Middle Ages. literature, regional-landscape moment is cf. century remains dominant, coupled with the intensified religious iconographic. So it's a novel. S., Gothic and Byzantine. Symbols (as one can generally define the art of the countries of the Byzantine circle) differ not only chronologically or geographically, but primarily because each of them is based on a special system of symbolic hierarchies, however, by no means mutually isolated (as, for example, in Vladimir -Suzdal plastic art of the 12th-13th centuries, where Romanesque is superimposed on the Byzantine base). Parallel to the emergence and spread of world religions, it was iconographic. the stimulus is increasingly becoming fundamental, determining the features of the style-forming kinship characteristic of numerous. local centers of early Christ. artist cultures of Europe, Western Asia and Northern. Africa. The same applies to Muslim culture, where the dominant style-forming factor is also the religious factor, which partly unifies local traditions.
With the final separation of aesthetic. in early modern period, i.e. from the turn of the Renaissance, the category S. is finally ideologically isolated (It is significant in its own way that it is impossible to intelligibly say about some kind of “ancient” or “mid-century.” S., while the word “Renaissance” simultaneously outlines an era, and a completely clear stylistic category.) Only now S. actually becomes S., since the sum of cultural phenomena that previously gravitated towards each other due to regional or religion. communities are equipped with critical-evaluative categories, which, clearly dominating, outline the place of a given sum, a given “superproduct” in history. process (thus Gothic, representing decline and “barbarism” for the Renaissance and, on the contrary, the triumph of national artistic self-awareness for the era of romanticism, over the course of several centuries of modern times acquired the semblance of a gigantic historical and artistic continent, surrounded by a sea of sympathies and antipathies). The whole history, starting from this turn, is under the influence of the ever-increasing charm of the concepts of “ancient,” “Gothic,” “modern.” etc. - begins to be conceptualized stylistically or stylized. Historicism, i.e. person time as such is separated from historicism, i.e. image of this time, expressed in various kinds of retrospections.
S. now reveals more and more claims to normative universality, and on the other hand, it is emphatically individualized. "S-personalities" are moving forward. - these are all three Renaissance titans, Leonardo da Vinci, Raphael and Michelangelo, as well as Rembrandt in the 17th century. and other great masters. Psychologization of the concept in the 17th and 18th centuries. further strengthened: the words of R. Burton “Style reveals (arguit) man” and Buffon “Style is man” foreshadow psychoanalysis from afar, showing that we are talking not only about generalization, but about identifying, even exposing the essence.
Utopian ambivalence. claims to an absolute super-personal norm (in fact, already the Renaissance in its classical phase conceptualizes itself as such) and the growing role of personal manners or “idiostyles” is accompanied by another kind of ambivalence, especially clearly outlined within the framework of the Baroque; We are talking about the emergence of permanent stylistic. antagonism, when one symbol presupposes the obligatory existence of another as its antipode (a similar need for an antagonist existed before, for example, in the “Attic-Asian” contrast of ancient poetics, but never before acquired such magnitude). The very phrase "baroque classicism of the 17th century." suggests such two-facedness, which was consolidated when in the 18th century. Against the background of classicism (or rather, within it), romanticism arose. The entire subsequent struggle between tradition (traditionalism) and the avant-garde in all their varieties goes along the lines of this stylistic movement. dialectics of thesis-antithesis. Thanks to this, the property of every most historically significant work becomes not monolithic integrity (characteristic of monuments of ancient cultures, where, as it were, “everything is their own”), but actual or latently implied dialogism, polyphony of S., which attracts primarily with its obvious or hidden differences.
In the space of post-Enlightenment culture, the claims of one style or another for a universal aesthetic. significance weakens over time. From ser. 19th century The leading role is no longer given to “epoch-making” styles, but to successive trends (from impressionism to later avant-garde movements) that determine the dynamics of art. fashion.
On the other hand, becoming smaller in art. life, S. is absolutized, “soars” even higher into philosophy. theories. Already for Winckelmann, S. represents the highest point in the development of the entire culture, the triumph of its self-revelation (he believes that Greek art after the classics, during the period of decline, no longer possesses S. at all). In Semper, Wölfflin, Riegl, Worringer, the idea of S. plays a leading role as ch. mode of historical and artistic research that reveals the worldview of the era, its internal. the structure and rhythm of its existence. Spengler calls S. “the pulse of self-realization of culture,” thereby indicating that this particular concept is key for morphological. comprehension as a department. culture and their world history. interactions.
In the 19th-20th centuries. Further “stylization” of history is facilitated by the established skill of naming many artists. periods according to specific chronological milestones, most often dynastic ("S. Louis XIV"in France, "Victorian" in England, "Pavlovian" in Russia, etc.). The idealization of a concept often leads to the fact that it turns out to be an abstract philosophical program, externally imposed on historical and cultural reality (as often happens with “realism” - a word originally borrowed from theology, and not from artistic practice; “avant-garde” also constantly turns out to be a pretext for mystifications, subordinate to socio-political, conjuncture). important tool history cognition, the concept of S., epistemologically abstract, increasingly turns out to be a brake on it - when, instead of concrete. cultural phenomena or their complex sum, their correspondence to one or another abstract stylistic is explored. norms (as, for example, in the endless debates about what is baroque and what is classicism in the 17th century, or where romanticism ends and realism begins in the 19th century). Will add confusion in the 19-20 centuries. introduces the problem of national socialism, which has not yet found an optimal solution due to its fatal dependence on politics.
Psychoanalysis in various its varieties, as well as structuralism, as well as postmodern "new criticism" make a fruitful contribution to exposing idiocratic. fictions that have accumulated around the concept "C". As a result, it seems that it is now turning into some kind of outdated archaism. In fact, it is being transformed without in any way dying out.
Modern practice shows that diff. S. are now no longer so much born spontaneously, summed up after the fact, but rather consciously modeled, as if in some kind of time machine. The artist-stylist does not so much invent as combine “files” of history. archive; the design concept of “styling” (i.e., creating a visual image of a company) also seems to be entirely combinatorial and eclectic. However, within the endless postmodern montage, the richest new possibilities of individual “idiostyles” are opening up, demystifying - and thereby cognitively opening - the real field of culture. Modern visibility of the entire world historical and stylistic panorama allows us to fruitfully study the diversity. morphology and “pulses” of S., while avoiding mental fictions.
Lit.: Kon-Wiener E. History of styles of fine arts. M., 1916; Ioffe I.I. Culture and style. L.; 1927; Ancient theories of language and style. M.;L., 1936; Sokolov A.N. Style theory. M., 1968; Losev A.F. Understanding of style from Buffon to Schlegel // Lit. studies. 1988. No. 1; Shapiro M. Style // Soviet art history. Vol. 24. 1988; Losev A.F. Problem artistic style. Kyiv, 1994; Vlasov V. G. Styles in art: Dictionary. T. 1. St. Petersburg, 1995.
Excellent definition
Incomplete definition ↓
