I really like that Kubler began with the railroad analogy because it helped me understand the argument. I also like that Kubler discusses the entrance of an artist because I think this is something the average person overlooks when thinking about an artist. People discuss artists in terms of who inspired them or who they inspired but they don't talk about what inspired the artist. By this I mean that the way the artist grew up or what was happening at that period of time is sometimes forgotten. People talk more about where the artist studied than what was happening in the world at that time (war, revolutions, scientific discoveries, etc.). In grades school we learned about musicians upbringings and surroundings but we only talked about painters in terms of who came before them and who came after them.
I think Kubler summed it up very well by writing about the disservice it does to society to separate art from science, mechanical from liberal arts. This further adds to the discussion we had earlier in the year about the intersection of science, math and art.
"Our choice of the 'history of things' is more than a euphemism to replace the bristling uniqueness of 'material culture'."