Solipsism, in this case, refers to placing oneself at the center of things. Once your focus becomes expressing your own impressions of a thing, as opposed to expressing why that thing caused those impressions, you do this. I don't see how such an attitude is incapable of producing art - I'd wager the vast majority of today's artistic expression comes from exactly that.
I don't know exactly what ANUS-style criticism is these days, as I rarely come here, nor how I am projecting it. I am, in fact, projecting only what I myself see. Unless you had difficult understanding my point, your claim that I make little sense, makes little sense. It always makes sense to criticize and challenge subjectivity. How is rationalizing something which is not meant to be rational, in any way a failure of the person rationalizing - is not the point of rationale the idea that it can be applied to anything? How is subject matter not a valid point of criticism - is the choice of subject matter out of the artist's hands, or does it in and of itself express something? Why doesn't mundaneness imply superficiality - because we can inject meaning into it?
I find there's much more projection in the two analyses you referenced than in anything I said. The Caillebotte painting didn't make me think of alienation due to urbanization at all. I found it relaxing, and felt the man's face to reflect this as opposed to apathy. Any sense of isolation was of the comforting, not alienating, type - being a result of the fact that it's raining, not the fact they're in a city. In short, I found the painting to be an expression of the calming nature of rainfall. Even in the confines of a city - which goes directly against the analysis' interpretation that it expresses the impact of modernity on human interaction.
The Toulouse-Latrec painting did not communicate any of the sensations outlined in the relevant analysis to me at all; I found it to be vibrant, not oppressive. Stuffy, sure, but that seemed like nothing but a reflection of the feeling any person gets when in a closed room with close friends, having partaken of copious drink and smoke, in lively conversation pregnant with passion more than meaning. In short, to me it looks like a painting of being heavily buzzed without being outright drunk. A good night out.
Now, my impressions of these paintings are absolutely projections, just as much as the analysts' are. But I will not defend them as being anything more than that. They are fully subjective, and because of that I won't be trying to ascribe any more validity to them than they deserve. And I certainly won't use these projections as evidence of a deeper significance in the things to which they are directed. Any significance I ascribe to the paintings is a significance I invent myself. As such, the paintings are not only solipsistic expressions by the ones who made them - they draw me into solipsism myself.
I don't see how "Among the Sierra Nevada Mountains" is feminine, unless luminescence and enormity are feminine concepts to you. The numinous experience is not something I find to be inherently feminine (or masculine, for that matter) at all. And sentimentality, in and of itself, is certainly not undesirable or feminine; the Greek epics and Icelandic sagas are full of it.