Goethe and Rand on Art

[dan2100]

Many years ago, libertarian activist Terry Inman (d. 1994) suggested that Ayn Rand's views on art were similar to and possibly influenced by Goethe. The way to approach this question is to first ask what conditions would have to be met for such influence. One is the obvious one: the influence would have to come earlier. Next, one would have to find some evidence for an actual path of influence, such as the person being influenced knowing of the influencing person's ideas. Finally, I would need to show that there is some similarity between the ideas of or some sort of evolutionary path from one to the other.

The first condition has been met: Rand came after Goethe. The next is much harder to prove, since I don't have access to Rand's notebooks and she had a habit of not citing all her sources. Plus there might be many paths influence can take, such as Rand talking to someone about art -- and that someone had absorbed Goethe's ideas and passed them on to Rand without her ever knowing the original source.

I won't delve into the evolution of Rand's thought here, but let's see if there are any low-hanging fruit -- meaning similarities that are easy to spot. I think there are. As evidence of similarity, I offer the following quote from Goethe:

"Style... rests on the most fundamental principle of cognition, on the essence of things -- to the extent that it is granted us to perceive this essence in visible and tangible form." ("Simple Imitation, Manner, Style" in Essays on Art and Literature, p72)

Compare this to a quote from Rand:

"An artist does not fake reality -- he stylizes it. He selects those aspects of existence which he regards as metaphysically significant -- and by isolating and stressing them, by omitting the insignificant and accidental, he presents his view of existence." (The Romantic Manifesto, p36 [emphasis in the original])

It appears to me that Goethe and Rand are saying virtually the same thing. Goethe seems a little less clear, but the gist is the same: he and her believe art focuses on the essentials of its subject. Rand tells us more of how this is done, "by isolating and stressing" the important and omitting the insignificant and accidental."

Here's another quote from Goethe:

"... the true connoisseur [of art] sees not only the realism of what is imitated but also the excellence in the selection of subject matter, the imaginativeness in composition, and the supra-natural spirit of this micro-world of art. He feels that he must rise to the level of the artist in order to enjoy the work, that he must focus his scattered energies on the work of art, that he must live with it, must see it again and again, and thus achieve a higher level of awareness." ("On Realism in Art" in Essays on Art and Literature, p78)

A very similar view is held by Rand in the following passage:

"The sensory-perceptual awareness of an adult does not consist of mere sense data... but of automatized integrations that combine sense data with a vast context of conceptual knowledge. The visual arts refine and direct the sensory elements of these integrations. By means of selectivity, of emphasis and omission, these arts lead man's sight to the conceptual context intended by the artist. They teach man to see more precisely and to find deeper meaning in his field of vision." (The Romantic Manifesto, p47)

Even though Goethe is talking about all art and Rand is concentrating on painting, we again find them saying virtually the same thing. The selectivity and stylization of the artistic subject guide our experience of it. This leads to "a higher level of awareness" allowing us "to find deeper meaning" in that same experience. Rand again seems much clearer. (Perhaps this might be the result of translating Goethe from German into English.)

So perhaps Rand refined Goethe. Do these refinements go beyond mere stylistic ones? I believe so. Though Goethe's style is not that bad -- he seems to have written for the popular audience too -- he does hint at a mixed philosophy. We know he was basically pro-reason and pro-empirical. However, he was also a Christian. In the second of his quotes above, he mentions "the supra-natural spirit of this micro-world of art." This does not sound at all metaphysical. Instead, it fits into an idealistic or supernaturalistic worldview –- that is that there is something beyond the natural world.

But despite these handicaps, Goethe came very close to Rand's formulations. Was she influenced by him? I don't know, but at least the case for a potential influence has been made.

[jriggenbach]

Many years ago, libertarian activist Terry Inman (d. 1994) suggested that Ayn Rand's views on art were similar to and possibly influenced by Goethe. The way to approach this question is to first ask what conditions would have to be met for such influence. One is the obvious one: the influence would have to come earlier. Next, one would have to find some evidence for an actual path of influence, such as the person being influenced knowing of the influencing person's ideas. Finally, I would need to show that there is some similarity between the ideas of or some sort of evolutionary path from one to the other.

The first condition has been met: Rand came after Goethe. The next is much harder to prove, since I don't have access to Rand's notebooks and she had a habit of not citing all her sources. Plus there might be many paths influence can take, such as Rand talking to someone about art -- and that someone had absorbed Goethe's ideas and passed them on to Rand without her ever knowing the original source.

I won't delve into the evolution of Rand's thought here, but let's see if there are any low-hanging fruit -- meaning similarities that are easy to spot. I think there are. As evidence of similarity, I offer the following quote from Goethe:

"Style... rests on the most fundamental principle of cognition, on the essence of things -- to the extent that it is granted us to perceive this essence in visible and tangible form." ("Simple Imitation, Manner, Style" in Essays on Art and Literature, p72)

Compare this to a quote from Rand:

"An artist does not fake reality -- he stylizes it. He selects those aspects of existence which he regards as metaphysically significant -- and by isolating and stressing them, by omitting the insignificant and accidental, he presents his view of existence." (The Romantic Manifesto, p36 [emphasis in the original])

It appears to me that Goethe and Rand are saying virtually the same thing. Goethe seems a little less clear, but the gist is the same: he and her believe art focuses on the essentials of its subject. Rand tells us more of how this is done, "by isolating and stressing" the important and omitting the insignificant and accidental."

Here's another quote from Goethe:

"... the true connoisseur [of art] sees not only the realism of what is imitated but also the excellence in the selection of subject matter, the imaginativeness in composition, and the supra-natural spirit of this micro-world of art. He feels that he must rise to the level of the artist in order to enjoy the work, that he must focus his scattered energies on the work of art, that he must live with it, must see it again and again, and thus achieve a higher level of awareness." ("On Realism in Art" in Essays on Art and Literature, p78)

A very similar view is held by Rand in the following passage:

"The sensory-perceptual awareness of an adult does not consist of mere sense data... but of automatized integrations that combine sense data with a vast context of conceptual knowledge. The visual arts refine and direct the sensory elements of these integrations. By means of selectivity, of emphasis and omission, these arts lead man's sight to the conceptual context intended by the artist. They teach man to see more precisely and to find deeper meaning in his field of vision." (The Romantic Manifesto, p47)

Even though Goethe is talking about all art and Rand is concentrating on painting, we again find them saying virtually the same thing. The selectivity and stylization of the artistic subject guide our experience of it. This leads to "a higher level of awareness" allowing us "to find deeper meaning" in that same experience. Rand again seems much clearer. (Perhaps this might be the result of translating Goethe from German into English.)

So perhaps Rand refined Goethe. Do these refinements go beyond mere stylistic ones? I believe so. Though Goethe's style is not that bad -- he seems to have written for the popular audience too -- he does hint at a mixed philosophy. We know he was basically pro-reason and pro-empirical. However, he was also a Christian. In the second of his quotes above, he mentions "the supra-natural spirit of this micro-world of art." This does not sound at all metaphysical. Instead, it fits into an idealistic or supernaturalistic worldview –- that is that there is something beyond the natural world.

But despite these handicaps, Goethe came very close to Rand's formulations. Was she influenced by him? I don't know, but at least the case for a potential influence has been made.

Das ist ja sehr interessant, Herr Ust.

My first reaction to all this is to guess that Goethe, like Schiller and other Germans of the time, picked up his ideas about art from Kant. Rand's views on art are remarkably similar in many ways to Kant's views on art, though she seems to have been blissfully unaware of this, perhaps because she had never read Kant's Critique of Judgment and thus knew a good deal less than she thought she did about Kant's aesthetic views.

JR

[Jonathan]

Rand's views on art are remarkably similar in many ways to Kant's views on art, though she seems to have been blissfully unaware of this, perhaps because she had never read Kant's Critique of Judgment and thus knew a good deal less than she thought she did about Kant's aesthetic views.

In one statement Rand implied both that she had read Kant's Critique of Judgment and that she hadn't:

"It is highly doubtful that the practitioners and admirers of modern art have the intellectual capacity to understand its philosophical meaning; all they need to do is indulge the worst of their subconscious premises. But their leaders do understand the issue consciously: the father of modern art is Immanuel Kant (see his Critique of Judgment)."

Personally, I think that Leonardo should be considered the father, or at least the grandfather, of modern art (see his writings), since he inspired Alexander Cozens to create abstract "blotscapes" (and to create them prior to Kant's Critique of Judgment).

J

[Newberry]

Excellent, excellent post Dan.

[Newberry]

JR:

Rand's views on art are remarkably similar in many ways to Kant's views on art, though she seems to have been blissfully unaware of this, perhaps because she had never read Kant's Critique of Judgment and thus knew a good deal less than she thought she did about Kant's aesthetic views.

Jeff,

That is superficially correct. But if you study in depth the Critique of Judgment you will find that Kant presents concepts of beauty as the way art is normally known, essentially classical art, then in theory he argues why his concepts of the Sublime are superior. His concepts of the sublime are the foundations for the anti-art nature of Postmodern Art, the antithesis of Rand's aesthetic thought. I will gladly discuss with you any viewpoints and Kantian quotes you have to the contrary.

Michael

[DavidMcK]

There is also one other possibility: Convergent evolution. It is quite common for two people operating independently to come to common or similar conclusions since we all live in one frame of reference (the universe) e.g. Darwin and Wallace; Leibniz and Newton (calculus) and on and on. Goethe and Rand might fall into this category respecting art.

[Jonathan]

JR:

Rand's views on art are remarkably similar in many ways to Kant's views on art, though she seems to have been blissfully unaware of this, perhaps because she had never read Kant's Critique of Judgment and thus knew a good deal less than she thought she did about Kant's aesthetic views.

Jeff,

That is superficially correct. But if you study in depth the Critique of Judgment you will find that Kant presents concepts of beauty as the way art is normally known, essentially classical art, then in theory he argues why his concepts of the Sublime are superior. His concepts of the sublime are the foundations for the anti-art nature of Postmodern Art, the antithesis of Rand's aesthetic thought. I will gladly discuss with you any viewpoints and Kantian quotes you have to the contrary.

Michael

Actually, Michael won't discuss any viewpoints or Kantian quotes that you have to the contrary. When you quote Kant (or previous thinkers' similar ideas on the beautiful and the sublime) and point out to Michael how much of a jumble he has made in his facile misinterpretations of Kant, he'll avoid addressing your criticisms, and he'll claim that his avoidance isn't really avoidance, but that it only appears to you to be avoidance because a difference in your "cores" is preventing you from understanding his profound insights (Michael's "core" is grand and Romantic, where those who disagree with his half-baked interpretations have inferior "cores" which prevent them from seeing the Truth as only Michael can).

In short, when Michael wrote that he "will gladly discuss with you any viewpoints and Kantian quotes you have to the contrary," what he meant was that he will gladly display haughtiness as a substitute for substance.

J

[Newberry]

deleted

Edited April 4, 2010 by Newberry

[Jonathan]

Lol. Actually Jonathan, I have discussed aesthetics with you in good faith i.e. facts, quotes, history, and interpretations over a period of several years. True? Come on you can say "yes" can't you?

No, I generally wouldn't describe your end of our discussions as being "in good faith," but something more like "posturing and preening."

J

[Newberry]

Jonathan,

One of the things that makes discussions with you unpleasant is the absence of respect. I don't mean that you should agree, like my work, or my thought. But almost every time you engage me you have something nasty to say--which puzzles me. I don't think you will ever be part of my art family, i.e. people I share a like view and enthusiasm for art. Perhaps one day.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

Jonathan,

One of the things that makes discussions with you unpleasant

I think I’ve seen the two of you duke it out on one site or another. FWIW, just looking at this thread, Michael seems the reasonable, polite contributor, and Jonathan just comes across as a dick. It’s like how Xray chases Jeff Riggenbach from thread to thread, even after he’s told her he doesn’t want to talk to her on any subject. I believe the social sciences have provided a cogent explanation for this behaviour:

Edited April 4, 2010 by Ninth Doctor

[anonrobt]

Jonathan,

One of the things that makes discussions with you unpleasant

I think I’ve seen the two of you duke it out on one site or another. FWIW, just looking at this thread, Michael seems the reasonable, polite contributor, and Jonathan just comes across as a dick. It’s like how Xray chases Jeff Riggenbach from thread to thread, even after he’s told her he doesn’t want to talk to her on any subject. I believe the social sciences have provided and explanation for this behaviour:

ROFL... sadly, so true...

[Jonathan]

Jonathan,

One of the things that makes discussions with you unpleasant is the absence of respect.

No, I don't think that's it. Back when we first started having discussions online, I was overly polite and respectful toward you (since I had already recognized how defensive and disrespectful you could be toward others who had disagreed with you), yet you responded to me with the same haughtiness that you do today. It really doesn't matter if I'm nice or nasty to you when disagreeing with you (and I'm often very nice), your response is always the same.

I don't mean that you should agree, like my work, or my thought. But almost every time you engage me you have something nasty to say--which puzzles me.

I think that, contrary to what you say, you do mean that I should agree with all of your thoughts. No matter how politely and respectfully I present my disagreements with you, you always interpret them as being "nasty." I think it's very upsetting to you that I don't worship you, and that I know enough about art to not buy into the branding image that you're trying to sell.

I don't think you will ever be part of my art family, i.e. people I share a like view and enthusiasm for art. Perhaps one day.

Do you imagine that my being accepted into your "art family" is a goal of mine?

J

[Jonathan]

I think I’ve seen the two of you duke it out on one site or another. FWIW, just looking at this thread, Michael seems the reasonable, polite contributor, and Jonathan just comes across as a dick.

Yeah, well, you'd need to look at more than just this thread. It's like walking into a bar and seeing one guy calling another an asshole. Without having seen the past ten years of behavior that both of them exhibited, you'd probably conclude that it was unfair for the one guy to call the other an asshole. It would probably be the type of situation where you should mind your own business since your opinion is based on a mere fraction of a fraction of the evidence.

It’s like how Xray chases Jeff Riggenbach from thread to thread, even after he’s told her he doesn’t want to talk to her on any subject.

Or how you've followed me to this thread to stick your nose into a discussion which is none of your business, and about which you know nothing?

Are you still upset that I jokingly applied the typical Objectivist method of aesthetic denunciation to Turandot? Is that why you've chased me to this thread?

I believe the social sciences have provided and explanation for this behaviour...

I think if we were to expand the "audience" to a much larger sampling, and include people other than Objectivists and Objectivist-types, the general consensus would be that, in my online relationship with Newberry, I am the person who usually starts out very polite and reasonable, and that Michael is the "dick." In fact, a variation on the little illustration that you posted is how I see many of Newberry's (and many other Objectivist-types') arts "reviews" and other aesthetic tirades. Instead of "normal person + anonymity + audience = total fuckhead," it would be something more like "normal person + Objectivist cultural-warrior/hero-wannabe attitude + audience of Objectivists = total fuckhead."

J

[9thdoctor]

Yeah, well, you'd need to look at more than just this thread. It's like walking into a bar and seeing one guy calling another an asshole.

Indeed, that’s why I qualified my statement with “just looking at this thread”.

Are you still upset that I jokingly applied the typical Objectivist method of aesthetic denunciation to Turandot? Is that why you've chased me to this thread?

Nope, though that would be Xrayesque. I just read it, didn’t like what I saw, thought of the cartoon, and figured I’d share it. I didn't mention opera at all.

Hmm, I think that's the first time you've acknowledged you were joking.

normal person + Objectivist cultural-warrior/hero-wannabe attitude + audience of Objectivists = total fuckhead.

Yeah, whatever buddy. Feel free to take this as a compliment: you’re like Babe Ruth, lots of homeruns and lots of strikeouts.

[Jonathan]

"Strikeouts"? Why are you being so nasty and disrespectful? That's not the way to make it into my art family.

J

[Brant Gaede]

Lol. Actually Jonathan, I have discussed aesthetics with you in good faith i.e. facts, quotes, history, and interpretations over a period of several years. True? Come on you can say "yes" can't you?

No, I generally wouldn't describe your end of our discussions as being "in good faith," but something more like "posturing and preening."

J

If true, why is it important?

--Brant

[dan2100]

Das ist ja sehr interessant, Herr Ust.

Danke.

My first reaction to all this is to guess that Goethe, like Schiller and other Germans of the time, picked up his ideas about art from Kant. Rand's views on art are remarkably similar in many ways to Kant's views on art, though she seems to have been blissfully unaware of this, perhaps because she had never read Kant's Critique of Judgment and thus knew a good deal less than she thought she did about Kant's aesthetic views.

I don't think your first guess is that far off, though my familiarity with Goethe comes from mostly from reading the book I mentioned. But there are many similarities between Kant and Rand on art -- at least in some fundamentals. For example, I see his and her view of the artist as basically the same.

I also think she was quick to dismiss Kant -- as George Walsh, George H. Smith, and others have pointed out with respect to other fields -- and quick to link him to Modernism and everything she felt was bad in art -- as if Kant was scheming to destroy art and everything else. I think the history here is a bit complicated -- like all history -- and I feel one should be careful about making too many generalizations about it... But I think Romanticism itself, a movement that Rand extolled, seems to have paved the way for Modernism and similar movements. (I once speculated that Rand was amalgamating Classicism and Romanticism -- probably in a dialectical fashion, but not as explicitly as she did in other fields. E.g., she seems to have absorbed and made her own the Romantic hero and artist concepts -- with revisions for her kind of hero -- but seems to let in classical ideas -- the Beautiful as the Good (not explicitly, of course) -- in through the back door. I wanted to explore this further.)

[dan2100]

There is also one other possibility: Convergent evolution. It is quite common for two people operating independently to come to common or similar conclusions since we all live in one frame of reference (the universe) e.g. Darwin and Wallace; Leibniz and Newton (calculus) and on and on. Goethe and Rand might fall into this category respecting art.

That is, of course, a possibility, and it's kind of covered in them being influenced by similar background material. I just wanted to make a case that influence shouldn't be cavalierly dismissed.

Perhaps a better case of "convergent evolution" is the similarities of views on art of Adam Smith to Rand -- on which I'll post something here later, I hope -- and Kenyon Cox to Rand -- which Torres and Kamhi mentioned in passing many years ago and, after I'd heard of this, I wrote a brief paper on (I might also place that here for comment). In these cases, I doubt Smith had much influence, direct or indirect, on Rand in this area -- as he probably had little influence on anyone since, if my memory's correcthis works on esthetics weren't published until the late 20th century.

Regarding Cox, similarly, I doubt any case could be made for direct influence, though I'm uncertain how much he influenced others in a way that might have gotten to Rand. It's also possible that she read something by him or got a dose of his ideas from someone in her circle of contacts, of course.

[Jonathan]

Lol. Actually Jonathan, I have discussed aesthetics with you in good faith i.e. facts, quotes, history, and interpretations over a period of several years. True? Come on you can say "yes" can't you?

No, I generally wouldn't describe your end of our discussions as being "in good faith," but something more like "posturing and preening."

J

If true, why is it important?

--Brant

Why is it important for Michael to posture and preen? I'm not a psychologist, but my guess would be that there are probably some self-esteem issued involved, but that it's also a matter of Michael trying to craft a brand image of himself to an audience of Objectivists and potential customers. You have to remember that he's not here like the rest of us to just have interesting discussions with like-minded people, put to promote his art. Objectivists are a market to Michael, and crafting the image of a Cultural Warrior™ who fights against those whom Ayn Rand identified as aesthetic enemies of Objectivism would a pretty good sales pitch for Michael to use on Objectivists.

J

[Jonathan]

I also think she was quick to dismiss Kant -- as George Walsh, George H. Smith, and others have pointed out with respect to other fields -- and quick to link him to Modernism and everything she felt was bad in art -- as if Kant was scheming to destroy art and everything else.

Where Objectivists often seem to see Kant as having had the goal of advising future artists on where they should go with their art and what they should value, I think that he was more about reporting and analyzing where past artists had been and why they valued what they had valued.

I think the history here is a bit complicated -- like all history -- and I feel one should be careful about making too many generalizations about it... But I think Romanticism itself, a movement that Rand extolled, seems to have paved the way for Modernism and similar movements.

I think "paved the way" is a great way of saying it, and I think that the resurgence of the Sublime in the arts, just prior to Kant, paved the way for Romanticism. I think it's pretty clear that, contrary to Newberry, it was Romanticism -- and not Modernism and Postmodernism -- that was much more closely associated with the Sublime than with the Beautiful.

J

Edited April 5, 2010 by Jonathan

[dan2100]

Lol. Actually Jonathan, I have discussed aesthetics with you in good faith i.e. facts, quotes, history, and interpretations over a period of several years. True? Come on you can say "yes" can't you?

No, I generally wouldn't describe your end of our discussions as being "in good faith," but something more like "posturing and preening."

J

If true, why is it important?

--Brant

Why is it important for Michael to posture and preen? I'm not a psychologist, but my guess would be that there are probably some self-esteem issued involved, but that it's also a matter of Michael trying to craft a brand image of himself to an audience of Objectivists and potential customers. You have to remember that he's not here like the rest of us to just have interesting discussions with like-minded people, put to promote his art. Objectivists are a market to Michael, and crafting the image of a Cultural Warrior™ who fights against those whom Ayn Rand identified as aesthetic enemies of Objectivism would a pretty good sales pitch for Michael to use on Objectivists.

J

I thought Brant meant why it is important to you if Michael Newberry postures and preens. Imagine a discussions between many people where some wants to get at the truth about some subject. But let's say there's on in the discussion who also wants to posture and preen. Maybe, in fact, he wants to posture and preen and couldn't care less about getting at the truth. Couldn't the truth-seekers simply ignore the posturing and preening moving the discussion forward regardless of it? Wouldn't that be, in most cases, the way to deal with the alleged problem of posturing and preening?

[Jonathan]

I thought Brant meant why it is important to you if Michael Newberry postures and preens. Imagine a discussions between many people where some wants to get at the truth about some subject. But let's say there's on in the discussion who also wants to posture and preen. Maybe, in fact, he wants to posture and preen and couldn't care less about getting at the truth. Couldn't the truth-seekers simply ignore the posturing and preening moving the discussion forward regardless of it? Wouldn't that be, in most cases, the way to deal with the alleged problem of posturing and preening?

In a more general forum, as opposed to an Objectivist one, I'd say that, yes, it would probably usually be better to ignore posturing and preening. But with Objectivism's long history of aesthetic intimidation and conformity, I think it's often worthwhile to confront it in Objectivist fora.

May I ask why there's so much concern about my commenting on Michael's posturing and preening? I mean, there doesn't seem to be similar concern about others here. If some ignoramus bloviates about altruism or epistemology, and others point out what a bloviating ignoramus he is, I don't see people rushing to protect the ignoramus.

Is the idea that you feel pity for Michael that you don't feel for others? Why should I be more polite to Michael than others here are being to each other? Why should I be more gentle or respectful of Michael than he is of the artists and aesthetic theorists he criticizes?

J

Edited April 5, 2010 by Jonathan

[dan2100]

I thought Brant meant why it is important to you if Michael Newberry postures and preens. Imagine a discussions between many people where some wants to get at the truth about some subject. But let's say there's on in the discussion who also wants to posture and preen. Maybe, in fact, he wants to posture and preen and couldn't care less about getting at the truth. Couldn't the truth-seekers simply ignore the posturing and preening moving the discussion forward regardless of it? Wouldn't that be, in most cases, the way to deal with the alleged problem of posturing and preening?

In a more general forum, as opposed to an Objectivist one, I'd say that, yes, it would probably usually be better to ignore posturing and preening. But with Objectivism's long history of aesthetic intimidation and conformity, I think it's often worthwhile to confront it in Objectivist fora.

As newcomer to this forum, I don't see things that way. Also, I'm not sure that that sort of approach is likely to resolve the problem. I feel it might only push alleged posturers and preeners to become defensive.

May I ask why there's so much concern about my commenting on Michael's posturing and preening? I mean, there doesn't seem to be similar concern about others here. If some ignoramus bloviates about altruism or epistemology, and others point out what a bloviating ignoramus he is, I don't see people rushing to protect the ignoramus.

I'm not sure I've seen that. The lengthy discussion under altruism seems to have many instances of ignorance being pointed out.

Is the idea that you feel pity for Michael that you don't feel for others? Why should I be more polite to Michael than others here are being to each other? Why should I be more gentle or respectful of Michael than he is of the artists and aesthetic theorists he criticizes?

No. I don't feel any specific pity for Michael Newberry. I haven't read enough of him here to get an idea of how he criticizes artists and esthetic theorists -- whether he's gentle and respectful.

[dan2100]

I also think she was quick to dismiss Kant -- as George Walsh, George H. Smith, and others have pointed out with respect to other fields -- and quick to link him to Modernism and everything she felt was bad in art -- as if Kant was scheming to destroy art and everything else.

Where Objectivists often seem to see Kant as having had the goal of advising future artists on where they should go with their art and what they should value, I think that he was more about reporting and analyzing where past artists had been and why they valued what they had valued.

That's my reading of him too, but it's been a while since I read his works on art. Of course, when people dabble in esthetics, they are often putting forth their theories as if they've gotten at the truth and sometimes this ropes off either what they believe is art or what they believe is good art. (Think of Aristotle or Rand on this. They're not holding back on what they feel is either art or good art. Modern thinkers do much the same, though they often are not as open about it. )

I think the history here is a bit complicated -- like all history -- and I feel one should be careful about making too many generalizations about it... But I think Romanticism itself, a movement that Rand extolled, seems to have paved the way for Modernism and similar movements.

I think "paved the way" is a great way of saying it, and I think that the resurgence of the Sublime in the arts, just prior to Kant, paved the way for Romanticism. I think it's pretty clear that, contrary to Newberry, it was Romanticism -- and not Modernism and Postmodernism -- that was much more closely associated with the Sublime than with the Beautiful.

I believe you're right in some sense. Modernism seems like an Apollonian reaction to what came before it -- which was not, in every type of art, Romanticism. (Historically, it appears to me that Romanticism was over in many of the arts long before Modernism. Of course, we'd have to define just what we mean by these terms. Right now, I'm only using them as as historians tend to use them.)

The focus on the sublime goes back to ancient times -- thing of Longinus' On the Sublime. I think one could make a case that Romanticism partly sprung from Gothicism and the latter definitely bent toward the Sublime. Also, I think there a sort of cycling in art between a focus on the beautiful, rational, and universal and the sublime, irrational, and particular. Romanticism, in many ways, seems to epitomize the latter. And esthetics and criticism seems to follow along -- fitting a pattern of usually rationalizing or justifying a particular age's arts or trashing it based, usually, by going back to a previous age -- as in Aristotle sort of appealing to Sophocles as the ideal tragedian while not having use for Euripides. (I owe this pattern view to an author whose name escapes me at the moment...)