What is the correct way to stop a ball

Compare:

What people are evidently keeps changing as rapidly as What people are wearing, and both have in common the fact that no one, not even those in the fashion business, knows the real secret of who these people are. (TMwQ, p 494)

If we cannot discern the common processes that underlie paintings only a limited number of years apart, then we should ask ourselves, first, whether we have not confused what is not style with style, and, secondly, whether we have not identified stylistic characteristics in ways that are too superficial or too narrow to reveal their roots in underlying processes. Surely an artist's style should be no more thought of as susceptible to fragmentation or fission than his personality. (Painting as an Art, p 36)

Surely an artist's personality would never do that! Naturally I find Wollheim's views about style bizarre and repellent. Not that I am moved to deny the idea that style is "something real"; only that I don't think nearly as much follows from this postulate as he does. Elsewhere in the lectures Wollheim evinces a view that, as far as I can tell, boils down to commitment to something like the following: Just as "sad", said of an expanse, cannot be literal without succumbing to anthropomorphism (for the expanse is not literally on the verge of tears, say), so too "depressed", said of a person, cannot be literal without succumbing to what you might call geomorphism (for the person is not literally a valley). I am also extremely suspicious of all the talk of causal relationships encountered so far, and am halfway prepared to make it a principle that, whenever a philosopher asserts that there is, or must be, a causal link between two things, he or she is engaging in handwaving.