The artists named all lived in the same art era late 17C to late 18C. In addition to Cheerskep's point that they share some aesthetic appeal they also share some elements of 'taste' by which I mean in their case a preference for a rational ordering and an appeal to historical references. Closer analysis would reveal many more apt comparisons. The sentence quoted from a critic is probably just a glib way to introduce his topic, giving him a chance to particularize the artists while stringing them on a thread called, erroneously, classical (unless specifically redefined as emergent neo-classical). It wouldn't pass Art Appreciation 101 in a good college.
wc ________________________________ From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thu, January 17, 2013 9:47:30 AM Subject: Re: "...There being precious xlittle connection between a David painting, a poem by Pope, a Wren church and a Mozart xoperaalth Artsy6 quotes a reviewer: "...There being precious xlittle connection between a David painting, a poem by Pope, a Wren church and a Mozart xopera although all might be referred to as bclassicalb." The reviewer seems to me to be making a sweeping statement without considering the subject from an aesthetician's point of view. . The works themselves that he cites may indeed appear quite unlike each other, and yet the undeniable fact is that each is credited with occasioning an experience in contemplators that is pleasant "aesthetically". How come? That is, how come each is pleasing, and how come the experiences are all termed by many people to be of the same "kind": aesthetic?
