Style concerns the way in which an artist chooses and combines the elements of painting: line, with its extensions; form, tone and colour. A good style is one which makes the elements of a painting as easy to see and appreciate as possible. As Reynolds might say, it makes a work as convenient for the viewer as possible. The precise configuration of these elements will vary from painter to painter. Compare, for example, the clear, sharp outline of a Botticelli, to the blurred masses of Whistler (which come into relative sharpness only from place to place). The styles of these artists could hardly be more different, yet both styles enable the pictures to make a strong and coherent impact on the viewer.
A style is based on a vocabulary of form, a characteristic range of schemata. For example, Poussin’s style may include figures arranged under a lighting which is relatively even, while Rembrandt may purposely throw some figures into darkness and others into bright light. Both painters adapt all parts of the painting in order to enhance these contrasting approaches to designing a painting. These contrasting approaches are not limited to characteristic lighting setups. The lighting affects the manner in which individual figures are drawn. Poussin’s schemata are more linear than Rembrandt’s solid blocks, yet each of their styles is consistent within itself.
Some argue that photographic cameras have individual styles, because they affect the scene in different ways. A polaroid photograph from a few decades ago, for example, might exhibit high contrast, exaggerated colours, and noticeable light fall-off towards the borders of the image. However these are only examples of the way in which photographic processes can degrade what appears in the viewfinder. These degradations do not involve intellect or vision: there is no translation into schemata. A camera cannot have a style in this sense, any more than a mirror. The so-called style of a camera is really only a demonstration of its technical imperfection.