Stylistic analysis of ancient works of visual art can help in determining their time and place of origin. It is therefore important to identify the elements that constitute style and their relative value for establishing relationships among artworks. Most helpful in this regard is Schapiro’s breakdown of style into three properties of art: form elements, form relationships, and qualities (including overall expression). Particularly helpful is his distinction between the first two categories. Citing the wide distribution over time of pointed and rounded arches in architecture, for example, Schapiro points out that form elements alone are insufficient for characterizing a style: one must also look at the different ways that the elements are combined—the compositional pattern or syntax. He compares style directly to language, as having a similar internal order and expressiveness; this order (or grammar) can distinguish one stylistic group from another. The way visual motifs are articulated and combined is crucial when dealing with themes that are shared by a number of different cultures contemporary with one another. As Winter has noted, subject matter or iconography then becomes much less important than style in determining the place of origin of a particular artwork.
In the passage, the point of comparing visual style to language is to emphasize that
similar cultures often share similar form elements in their visual art
subject matter is relatively unimportant in determining the place of origin of a work of visual art
the elements that constitute visual style differ in their value for establishing relationships between artworks
the arrangement of form elements in works of visual art observes certain conventions
the distinguishing features of a particular visual style are likely to have analogs in the literary style that prevails in the same time and place
Select one answer choice.

