Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T02:09:32.672Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Transposing “Style” from the History of Art to the History of Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Anna Wessely
Anna Wessely
Affiliation:
Institude of SociologyEötvös Loránd University, Budapest
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The paper argues for the restricted viability of the concept of style in the history of science. Since historians of science borrow this term from art history or the sociology of knowledge, the paper outlines its emergence and function in these disciplines, in order to show that the need for ever subtler stylistic distinctions in historical description inevitably leads to the dissolution of the concept of style itself.

“Style” will be defined in predominantly cognitive or technical terms when imputed to an individual; in social or moral terms when thought to be carried by some collective entity. Both descriptions are given normative interpretations. A good individual style, then, is regarded as the pledge for valid knowledge or insights of a “higher order,” while a collective style, understood as the vehicle of successful intra group communication, involves the acceptance of certain rhetorical norms and/or socially shared values that are supposed to structure that style. “National styles” belong to the latter category; the emergence of this dubious notion can best be explained in sociological terms.

If historians of science insist on adopting the concept of style, they will have to agree on its meaning. The paper concludes, therefore, with a rough typology of its most frequent meanings and uses.

Type
Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , Autumn 1991 , pp. 265 - 278
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Antal, Frederick. 1948. Florentine Painting and Its Social Background. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Antal, Frederick. 1962. Hogarth and His Place in European Art. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Ben-David, Joseph. 1984. The Scientist's Role in Society: A Comparative Study. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1987. Distinction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Buffon, . [1753] 1978. Discours sur le style: A Facsimile of the 1753 Edition, edited by Pickford, Cedric E.. Department of French, University of Hull.Google Scholar
Crane, Diana. 1987. The Transformation of the Avant-Garde: The New York Art World 1940–1985. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Crombie, A. C. 1981. “Shifting Interpretations of Galileo.” In Theory Change, Ancient Axiomatics, and Galileo's Methodology, Vol. 1, edited by Hintikka, J., Gruender, D., and Agazzi, E., 271–86. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Danto, Arthur C. 1981. The Transfiguration of the Commonplace. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Dvořák, Max. 1924. Kunstgeschichte als Geistesgeschichte, edited by Wilde, J. and Swoboda, K. M., Vol 2. Munich: Piper.Google Scholar
Elias, Norbert. 1977. Über den Prozess der Zivilisation, Vol. 1. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Fleck, Ludwík. [1935] 1979. Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goethe, J. W. [1789] 1973. “Einfache Nachahmung der Natur, Manier, Stil,” in Goethe: Schriften zur bildenden Kunst 1. Berliner Ausgabe, Vol. 19. Berlin and Weimar: Aufbau.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1977. Frame Analysis. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Goodman, Nelson. 1975. “The Status of Style.” Critical Inquiry 1:799–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gumbrecht, H.-U., and Pfeiffer, K. L., eds. 1986. Stil. Geschichte und Funktionen eines kulturwissenschaftlichen Diskurselements. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Hacking, Ian. 1982. “Language, Truth and Reason.” In Rationality and Relativism, edited by Hollis, M. and Lukes, S., 48–66. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hahn, Alois. 1986. “Soziologische Relevanzen des Stilbegriffs.” In Gumbrecht and Pfeiffer 1986, 603–11.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. 1956. The Philosophy of History. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. 1976. Aesthetics. Lectures on Fine Art, translated by Knox, T. M. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Herder, J. G. W., Goethe, J. W., and Möser, J. [1 1773] 1978. Von Deutscher Art und Kunst. Leipzig: Philipp Reclam jun.Google Scholar
Jauss, Hans Robert. 1970. “Schlegels und Schillers Replik auf die ‘Querelle des Anciens et des Modernes.’” In his Literaturgeschichte als Provokation. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. [2 1793] 1987. Critique of Judgment, translated by Pluhar, Werner S. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Kubler, George. 1969. “Comment.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 11:401–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kubler, George. 1987. “Toward a Reductive Theory of Visual Style.” In The Concept of Style, rev. ed., edited by Lang, B., 163–73. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Luckmann, Thomas. 1986. “Soziologische Grenzen des Stilbegriffs.” In Gumbrecht and Pfeiffer 1986, 612–18.Google Scholar
Mannheim, Karl. 1936. Ideology and Utopia. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Quotations here are from the Harvest Book edition, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Mannheim, Karl. [1928–1929] 1952. “Das Problem der Generationen.” Reprinted in English in his Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge, 276–322. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Mannheim, Karl. 1982. Structures of Thinking, edited by Kettler, D., Meja, V., and Stehr, N. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Martindale, Don. 1967. “The Sociology of National Character.” In National Character in the Perspective of the Social Sciences, edited by Martindale, D. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 370, 30–35.Google Scholar
Musil, Robert. 1921. “Geist und Erfahrung. Anmerkungen für Leser, welche dem Untergang des Abendlandes entronnen sind.” In Gesammelte Werke, Vol. 8: 1045–55. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt.Google Scholar
Neumann, Thomas. 1968. Der Künstler in der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft: Entwurf einer Kunstsoziologie am Beispiel der Künstlerästhetik Friedrich Schillers. Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke.Google Scholar
Panofsky, Erwin. 1968. Idea: A Concept in Art Theory. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Pfeiffer, K. Ludwig. 1986. “Produktive Labilität. Funktionen des Stilbegriffs. ” In Gumbrecht and Pfeiffer 1986, 685–715.Google Scholar
Pinder, Wilhelm. [1928] 1961. Das Problem der Generation in der Kunstgeschichte Europas. Bruckmann: Munich.Google Scholar
Polanyi, Michael. 1969. Knowing and Being, edited by Greene, M. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Riegl, Alois. 1901. Die spätrömische Kunstindustrie nach den Funden in Österreich-Ungarn. Vienna. Staatsdruckerei.Google Scholar
Riegl, Alois. 1929. Gesammelte Aufsätze. Augsburg and Vienna: Filser.Google Scholar
Szekfü, Gyula, ed. 1939. Mi a magyar? Budapest: Magyar Szemle Társaság.Google Scholar
Warnke, Martin. 1985. Hofkünstler: Zur Vorgeschichte des modernen Künstlers, Cologne: DuMont.Google Scholar
Winckelmann, Johann Joachim. 1764. Geschichte der Kunst des Altertums. Dresden: Walthersche Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
Wisan, W. 1981. “Galileo and the Emergence of a New Scientific Style.” In Theory Change, Ancient Axiomatics, and Galileo's Methodology, Vol. 1, edited by Hintikka, J., Gruender, D., and Agazzi, E., 311–39. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar