This raises a point about "Style". Another word that might be appropriate is "Branding" - Stephen Wilkes can be associated with his (unique) "Day to Night" series. Artists are not "branded" by their use of e.g. paper - it is the content on the paper that identifies their "style".
I may have picked the wrong Blog to discuss my use of electronic displays as being "Beyond the Print". My mistake may have been to go too high in abstraction level and thus moved away from "Style".
Equally, I think mistake are made when people try to intellectualise and over-complicate a simple thing like an image. I think pretty much everybody loses the plot when they attempt to give a complicated reason for the existence of an image. An image exists because at a give moment somebody thought it was interesting, or pretty or otherwise of meaning to them. That's all photography, non-commissioned, ever is. Is all any art ever is: it seemed a good idea at the time.
If folks could only accept it for what it is, we would all be spared the tedium (if not rising sense of hysteria) of reading artist's statements.
If anything brings photography and most of the rest of art into disrpute, it's those promoting it as something that it is not.