In seems to me that a “style” is not something I have. You can recognize many painters by how their work looks, but I am all over the place. This is not really by design, but more by learning by trying to figure out how they might do something. I started out here by trying to do an abstraction of a vase of gladioli, inspired by varied modern painters, but in the end I ended up doing most if it by shaping the flowers, background, and vase with vertical and horizontal strokes.
Using fluid acrylics, I painted with wet paint, and as time went by, used the brush to blend the drying paint. Some glazes were used, too. When I finished the vase, background, and bouquet, the background was pretty empty. So, simple geometric shapes – a bowl, a glass, a pitcher. I wanted them pale to blend into the background but still distinctive. The results seem to work.
11×14, cotton canvas on board, fluid acrylics.
Ink, Yarn & Beer 
I think you do have a style N! Of course I don’t know how to describe it!! I’m thinking it’s relaxed. I like that it’s not constrained.
I am not a fan of having a style, I like the diverse ways of things. I suppose it matters if you want to be a famous artist or at least a recognised one. I think all this ‘be recognised by your style’ is a bit boring, much more fun to be surprised it was yours.
I am of the same thought at you, Fraggy, about “style”. I like the fact that Degas said something to that effect, or some artist did. Something about being dead if they had only one style.
I like that thought, Anne. The fact is, realism bores me to tears . . .