the status of style

## nelson goodman ### Miller Lecture at University of Illinois

literary works not only say something, but they other do other things: they mean in other ways. ex: music and architecture only have style?

so we might think the obvious distinction is between what (subject) and how (style), but the subject is to certain extent part of the style: it affects the style.

different ways of saying the same thing / same way of saying different things.

“writing about battles of the renaissance, or writing about the paintings of the renaissance are two different ways of writing about the renaissance” -> talking about something more comprehensive that embraces both

style can be: - lexicon - structural - formal (rhythm, alliteration) - predominance of certain kinds of [insert feature]

some say that style begins when facts stops and feelings start: but emotions are an incomplete part of style, and style can’t be reduced to emotions

saying: explicit AND expressing: implicit AND exemplifying: sample-reference

the features, whether structural or non-structural, are all properties exemplified by a work.

a “property” can be either a statement made, a structure presented, or a feeling conveyed, or even a socio-historical belonging.

in the end, style is a property of the functioning work as a symbol (symbol of what? symbol as stand-in for something being “meaningful”, while being engrained in the time/place/identity)

style must be intentional, in that it fits in a broader network of symbolism.

style must be understood/analyzed by those who “know”

“placing a work is in itself aesthetically significant insofar as it makes for discovery of stylistic properties”