A toy model of aesthetics with just two binary variables, 'classiness' and 'busyness'*: Minimalism : Simple Classy Baroque : Busy Classy Brutalism : Simple Vulgar Rococo : Busy Vulgar Are these descriptions true ? Well, they are incomplete, and are not definitions (i.e. one-to-one mappings ), but yes. Are they helpful? As a start, absolutely. Now, the labels on the left are vague and intuitive family resemblances ; it is a fool's game to imagine they could ever be nailed down as monothetic definitions (the philosopher's ideal of neat, necessary and sufficient sets of attributes). We can still model usefully and harmlessly, even if the models can never be complete.** But the critics and art academics I know spend far more time muddying the water: deconstructing our use of the problematic term "classy"; and who gets to say what 'simplicity' is anyway? They don't seem to want to explain things, even fuzzily .*** Or, maybe the...