Romanticism?

I'll start with a juxtaposition:

1. Camille Paglia is at it again. She has a piece up in the Wall Street Journal called, "How Capitalism Can Save Art". The gist of it, and it's far from crazy, is that industrial design has produced far more of great worth than the art world the last few decades. You may or may not like Paglia's specific examples and taste, I certainly don't, but I still think her basic argument is irrefutable. The art world is decadent, corrupt and moribund.
2.  In an oddly related vein, we have a piece wondering why hipsters love obsolete technology. And they do. But they're right to do so. They can't bring themselves to love the latest products of industrial design but they love the old stuff. And, again, they are right to do so. Someone could, and they'd also be right, construct an argument explaining this in terms of motive. Two decades from now, when it too is obsolete, hipsters will celebrate the iPhone. They can only love this stuff once it has a history; they can only love it once they can associate it with lives and loves, battles won and lost ...

But here is my question, what about romanticism. The official art world hates neo-romanticism and the latest technology doesn't sit comfortably with it. And yet, the art that most people love is romanticism. And there is a huge market for fantasy fiction that tries very hard to make new technology fit into romantic tales.

So the question I have is this: Is it time to embrace romanticism again?

Serious writers will rush in now and point out how vulgar and unsophisticated current romanticism is with its princesses, rural revival fantasies, hopelessly exaggerated emotional upheavals and much else. And all that is true but you do have to wonder if that isn't in large part because serious artists refuse to try their hand at it.

I think a big part of why I like Proust and Waugh's Brideshead Revisisted so much is that they are both late romantics. I feel the same way about Mahler.