First, I want to thank everyone for their comments.
I find Romantic Realism very appealing, but the philosophical foundations of how she saw art remain unclear to me. I think she didn't explain it as clearly as her ideas in other areas.
I am very curious to hear their arguments and reasoning for Rand's view of art.
The fact that he has something to show (his art) doesn't mean he finds it important. What if a novelist just wants to tell a fun story and chooses a subject because it makes for good drama, but doesn't think it's important in wider existence?
Isn't the purpose of a novelist not to create an interesting story, not to 'show his world'? I also don't know of anyone who looks out novels or movies to 'see his world'. I could be wrong, but I'm trying to find an explanation of why this would be the case.
In the RM she writes that the sense of life is what steers the artists decisions. In the art of Fiction she also stated that you should create with subconscious and then afterwards critique it with reason.
But if you define art as a re-creation of reality, you still can't classify it as art.