I see Klimt as largely decorative. It doesn't stir much of anything in me. He's one of those artists where style is so pronounced, that I don't see much more than variations on a theme.

Mucha is interesting in that I have been thinking a bit about how post-impressionist works often look like illustrations. Like they've been made for print. Which in Mucha's case, often were. That's where design starts to take a leading role. So much has happened around visual design since these pieces were created, and so much of it was commercial. It's difficult for me not to see them through that lens. As a result, Klimt's works feel a bit more organic, a bit less illustrative, and maybe just a bit more interesting to me than Mucha's. But Mucha's look very nice. I'd be more apt to hang a Mucha.

Giacometti's sculptures are the most evocative of the three to me. They definitely have a design aspect, but I think they also inherited much of that since creation. For some reason, they feel a bit more sincere to me than Klimt. They exist in 3D as figures, so they are both representations and actuality, and IMO there's where the success lies. They kind of balance between looking like something, and being something.