That's a rant, Floyd, an exact illustration of what you're complaining about with your continued accusations about ad hominem attacks. You said that the "styles" of Ansel and Edward "clearly" are not identical. If it's so "clear" then it should be easy for you to explain the difference. Phrases like "continued attempt to confuse the issue" and "your silly questions" don't really deal with the question, do they? You backed yourself into a corner. Now explain the differences between Ansel and Edward or admit that neither one of them had what, in an artistic sense, could be called a "style."
Please stay on topic. In this thread it makes no difference if Adams and Weston are different or if Adams does or doesn't have a style. And until you show differently, it's off topic.
You want your own corner, and I've refused to go there. You should start a thread where it is on topic and begin it by making whatever claim it is about comparing Weston and Adams that you think is valid. You'll be in a corner from which there is no escape!
Lets take a fresh look at the original post that started this thread.
Let me start by saying that I derive virtually no income from this hobby of photography, although I do/will not hesitate to donate.
For years the mantra of developing one's style has been preached to me and I want no part of it...for it indicates, to me, that this journey has ended and that journey is what provides me the enjoyment.
I visited an art show a couple of weeks ago and took 30 minutes to watch a painter cough out an image...that's all the time he needed. He had developed his style and it never changed. Is that "Art"...I would hope not.
Imagine, just for a moment, that there is nothing left for one to learn, that the journey had ended...
To the degree the first conclusion drawn ("that this journey has ended") is correct, the rest follows as valid. However, the example of the 30 minute painting doesn't necessarily demonstrate that the painter's style is static and will not change in the future. Worse, claiming the painting is not "Art", even if the style was static, is hardly even close to valid. (It might not be exciting to you or me, but to someone else it might be exactly that.)
But the rhetorical question at the end is a very good leader for conversation!
I've no doubt that most, and probably all, artists come to periods in their careers where their style has become static, it's as if the journey has ended, and they are bored and in the doldrums! Sometimes it can last for years, maybe even a life time. Sometimes it's over the next day...
But the idea that developing "your own style" means that once you've found something to take possesion of means there can't be change just is never the goal any artist is likely to have. We keep moving the goal posts, looking at new horizons... doing what is more fun, more profitable, or whatever gives us a sense of success.
There was also the question at one point about photographers who've become famous for different styles, and the only one I could think of off hand was Joel Meyerowitz; but bless RSL's little heart of gold, Edward Weston is probably the classic case! He began at age 16 in 1902, when the "Pictorial Style" of photography was very much in vogue. Weston actually made a name for himself with work done in that style. But as he matured he became dissatisified and supposedly in 1915 was very inspired by an exhibit of Modern Art at the San Francisco World's Fair. The idea apparenlty crystalized in 1922 when he photographed a steel mill in Ohio. His style abruptly began to grow in a new direction, and by 1932 Weston was among those who formed the now famous Group F/64.
Point taken: Weston's style was his own very early in life and very clearly changed almost continuously, and at some points dramatically, over his entire life.
It may or may not be typical of all artists to make the dramatic change in style that Weston did (though we might note that Pablo Picasso did almost exactly the same thing at the same age, perhaps going in the opposite direction!), but at least two of the characteristics of Weston's stylistic journey are very common. One is to have periods where it seems nothing is changing and the fun and creativity are gone, and the other is to be most creative immediately after such a period when a "new love" has been found. (We might also note that Weston and Picasso seemed to share the charactisitc of being hugely inspired by the women they were involved wtth.)
Hence I would not agree that the mantra being preached, according to the OP, is development of a style to the point is extinction of change. It does not ever reach a point where development ends! Each step merely brings you to the point where the next step is one you can now take. The journey is life, and should end only at death rather than because "your style" is supposedly fully developed.
