…I wanted to say that this A, B, C, D thing is the Y-axis, and beauty or intensity of vision is the X-axis. I’m not sure that works, but I’ll go with it for the moment. The A through D scheme encompasses both insight and innovation; the beauty/intensity axis would capture both beauty (obviously) and sublimity.

No, it doesn’t work, because the two axes kind of intertwine, if you see what I mean. D-art is D-class in part because it lacks beauty or sublimity; sublimity certainly, and beauty probably, burns off sentiment. And the insights and innovations that move a work up the A-D scale are themselves often breathtakingly beautiful or intensely realized. I tried the two-axis thing because I wanted some way of talking about beautiful art that doesn’t necessarily provide a huge amount by way of insight or innovation, but that, by its beauty, attains greatness. I’m still not sure I have a good way of talking about that!

I feel myself skidding to an abrupt stop here, so I’ll stop abruptly. I hope something in this mess has proven helpful to you! Will post more on this as I figure out more; in the meanwhile, why not just read The Western Canon? Or Ratty’s interview with Harold Bloom?