[Servant of the Nine]

Reason ... philosophy ... religion ... literature ... fantasy ... dreams, and all of the feelings, emotions and pathos of our every day lives ... all of it was no longer worthy of the painter's craft. Any hint by the artist at trying to portray such things was branded as banal, maudlin, photographic, illustration, or petty sentimentality.

Unfortunately, a lot of what was turned out in 19th Century Art and Literature WAS banal, maudlin, and pettily sentimental.
The modernists threw out the baby with the bathwater.
The traditionalists want to keep everything, resulting in epidemic waves of intelectual diabetes.

Like any subject revolving around taste and quality, what is needed is a great deal of discrimination.
Both traditionalists and modernists are guilty of judging primarily by a works "school" rather than it's inate quality.
Art, music and books have to be judged individually on their merits, not as members of some "school" or "movement" and thus automatically to be praised or desparaged.

So9

[Huck]

Art, music and books have to be judged individually on their merits, not as members of some "school" or "movement" and thus automatically to be praised or desparaged.

It seems to me it is sometimes impossible to do that, or else it means willfully ignoring the relevant context of a particular work. I am not an art expert, but can we look at, say, Breton or Rimbaud without understanding the socio-political context in which it was made? Isn't that what gives it any significance at all? Some art may transcend whatever movement it was a part of, but in many cases, it seems to me, it is the school that gives it significance. Now, significance and beauty are two different things.