I think we have very different ideas what "style" is.
To me" style" has absolutely nothing to do with critiques. When I first saw Michael Kenna's landscape, I said "wow!". Then as I looked more - I recognised that although Kenna was schooled in the tradition of the grand landscape photographers, his way of seeing is obviously different, and resulted in a "style" of his own. Kenna did not need to justify himself, unlike many members here. His ethereal images are just simply gorgeous!
Kenna's "style" did not limit his imagination. On the contrary, Kenna's "style" was the result of his imagination.
Kenna's "style" did not kill humanity. On the contrary, it liberates humanity to see differently.
The artist is not interest in creating a "style". "Style" simply results from his imagination, creativity, and more importantly, his humanity. Good example is Picasso.
I think you are talking about the "superficial" form of "style" where one tries to create thing to make himself "special".
I am not referring to this banal form of "style". And I am not interested.