What I meant to say was that, all the examples I have given you are strictly dealing in substance. How they are interpreted by the observer lends them their style (or lack there of). I do not believe that style is an integral part of any of them. I don’t think Einstein or Stephen ever tried to dazzle humanity with their scientific advances. I don’t think Mandelbrot created fractal equaltions to visually dazzle his audience. I think Chagal painted what he felt rather than what he thought would appeal to the masses.
Sure, once these people and concepts became household names, people began to capitalize on them. Most of the time they became fashionable and stylish without being understood. In many ways, their commercialization trivialized their substance while touting them as being stylish or fashionable.
If your question is, do ideas or objects exist in our world which are not invariably deemed as having elements of style rather than pure substance then I have to say that the likelyhood is highly unlikely. Humans tend to commercialize and in some sense trivialize things of substance. Is that entirely bad? I don’t know. In a sense, stylization of something simply means it has been accepted and integrated into society on some level.
Perfect style is a presentation of perfect substance. The two do not exist independently. Any example of true substance is contained within its own perfect style. The two create and contain each other. All things in moderation? Bah! Show me an example of one thing, however mundane, stretched to its absolute extreme, and I will show you divinity.
Imagine the hippest, smoothest, coolest, most elegant, beautiful, wonderful, and stylish human. Can you imagine that person as a moron? Perfect style cannot be achieved without the perfect understanding of style that is the core and substance of the stylish thing being perceived.
I’m affraid this has turned into a Tastes Great / Less Filling debate.
As for Claudia; if Einstein can be forgiven his aversion to soap and water, I think we can be big enough to forgive Claudia her intellectual short commings. After all, there’s only so much substance a person can handle.
Does Claudia really achieve ideal style, Scylla? To my mind, she does not because she lacks the substance necessary to consistently act with admirable style.
I think style and substance are two totally different things. Claudia is literally liveng jewelry. Beyond her carefully cultivated style there is nothing there. (IMHO of course.)
To try to get back on debatable ground:
Let’s start with a factual equation of substance (and energy) E = mc squared. By itself, does it mean anything?
Let’s apply knowledge and know how to this equation and build ourself a bomb. Again, this is substantive, not stylistic. Still no meaning.
Now let’s drop this bomb on somebody and blow their shit up.
That my friends, is style! That meant something!
Ants build things of substance, but they got no style.
Substance means nothing, good or evil means nothing until it is passed through the forge of style.
Style without substance can still be pretty cool (i.e Claudia schiffer.)
Style defines the shapeless clay of substance and gives it meaning.
