(To clarify, the following regards piano alone and is entirely my opinion, excepting where I specifically note otherwise.)
Scriabin seems to me to be evolved from the foundation Debussy laid. If you go throughout Debussy's preludes you'll find yourself noticing many similarities, specifically the gratuitous servings of dissonant notes and an ever-present reference to the whole tone and pentatonic scales (Scriabin's twelve twelve tone is a modification of this), though you may chalk it up to sharing almost the exact same influences.
I feel Debussy is one of the most underrated composers for piano out there, especially by elitists and virtuosos thinking everything needs to be Liszt or Beethoven. Debussy claimed not to be composing music, but to be enacting an effect on/of reality. Also, of his Nocturnes: "an experiment in the different combinations that can be obtained from one color – what a study in grey would be in painting." If you listen to Ravel's transposition of Debussy's Nocturnes and Iberia for two pianos, you find he was simply not a strong orchestral composer.
This all depends, however, on what you feel music should be. If you think it should merely be a piano roll or played safe as far as theory is concerned, pick up some Bach, Beethoven, or Mozart. If, however, you think music should be organic, more than simply playing the notes at the notated dynamics and a relatively constant tempo, you may want to pick up Debussy or Scriabin. This puts the challenge on the performer to bring out the essence, to see past the paper. Not to mention the man essentially created modern Jazz.
As for "fragile and delicate," should one employ Beethoven to paint fragile, delicate things? Is music confined to strength? If so, drop Beethoven and pick up Wagner or something Russian.
I've only been playing half a year or so, but I'm happy to hear the opinion of another pianist, whether it disagrees with mine or not.
Your Signature Here