Abstract In this article, I argue that pictorial styles are individuated in terms of different degrees of determinacy. For example, Morandi’s still-life etchings and Monet’s cathedral paintings embody different styles in that in the former, shape properties are differentiated in a fine-grained manner, and in the latter, coarse grained. I develop this view by critically examining John Kulvicki’s analysis of how we interpret pictures. According to Kulvicki, we rarely interpret pictures as differing in terms of features that belong to the vehicle of representation—that is, the design-content relation. Rather, he thinks that we individuate pictorial styles in terms of the content that each picture represents. Contra Kulvicki, I argue that we interpret the vehicular features of pictures in light of our knowledge of picture production, and that the diversity of pictorial styles involves both content and vehicle.

中文翻译：

---

绘画风格的个性化标准是什么？

摘要 在本文中，我认为绘画风格在不同程度的确定性方面是个体化的。例如，莫兰迪的静物版画和莫奈的大教堂绘画体现了不同的风格，前者以细粒度方式区分形状属性，而后者以粗粒度方式区分。我通过批判性地研究约翰·库尔维克对我们如何解释图片的分析来发展这一观点。根据 Kulvicki 的说法，我们很少将图片解释为在属于表示载体的特征方面存在差异，即设计与内容的关系。相反，他认为我们根据每张图片所代表的内容来区分图片风格。Contra Kulvicki，我认为我们根据我们对图片制作的知识来解释图片的车辆特征，