How does Enlightenment philosophy influence the ongoing debate about whether or not rhetoric is a skill or an art?

Enlightenment philosophy seemed to vary widely on whether or not Rhetoric was an art or a skill. Early Enlightenment philosophers, especially Continental philosophers like Voltaire, seemed to deem rhetoric a skill. This argument was further perpetuated by trends in British culture like the Elocutionary Movement, where the ability to speak like lords and ladies was highly valued, despite being a fairly superficial trait. Thomas Sheridan was an Irish educator and one of the founders of the Elocutionary Movement, he thought that the Christian faith in Great Britain was in peril because; “[A] man shall rise in a public assembly, and without the least mark of shame, deliver a discourse to many hundred auditors, in such disagreeable tones and inharmonious cadences, as to disgust every ear; and with such improper and false use of emphasis, as to conceal or pervert the sense; and all without fear of any consequential disgrace…[And] this is done…in the very service of the Most High!” (175) So it would appear his grievances were about the skill with which the argument is given, versus the content of the sermon itself. There were those, however, to whom rhetoric remained an Art, among them Hugh Blair. Blair believed that “Rhetoric’s educational goals, then, are broader than simple preparation for professional success through making speeches.  Rhetorical training is preparation for living a life that combines graceful and effective expression in the public sphere with contemplation and enhanced aesthetic experience in private.” (178) Hugh clearly saw rhetoric as an art that encompassed all spheres of life and language. The legacy of the enlightenment on the argument over rhetoric; art vs. skill, is hard to nail down, but I believe by advancing the ideals of self education and awareness, rhetoric in some form or another was advanced.