A Hierarchy of the Arts?

I was having a discussion with a friend of mine about whether the arts could be organized into a hierarchy. He not only believed that they could, but also believed he knew the correct ordering and its justification. He placed the static visual arts (painting, sculpture, etc.) at the bottom. Above that was art film. Above that was art music. At the top, he placed literature. His reasons were as follows: Most people believe that art reveals some kind of truth. As a result, they are prone to trust that artists base their work on insight and understanding that goes beyond that of the average person. It would seem, then, that a correct hierarchy of the arts would not be based on their inherent potential (this friend of mine did not necessarily think that visual art lacked the possibility of standing on par with literature) but rather on the level of knowledge and understanding of the respective artists. He believed that artists working in the static visual arts tended to work from instinct and taste, and that they were least likely to call their own beliefs into question. Thus, you would often hear them explaining how art shakes the masses from their assumptions, but not how the painter continually challenges his or her own ideas. Furthermore, he felt that paintings had a tendency toward superficiality because they are still images, fixed in time (though, again, this was only a tendency.) For the sake of brevity, I'll skip to his ideas on literature. He believed that great writers were more generally well read than other artists and that their goals tended to revolve around the improvement of their own ideas more than that of the "masses". Furthermore, he felt that literature of its nature tended to demand greater complexity of thought and execution. Finally, he felt that of all the art forms, literature was the least likely to become propaganda. As for art film and art music, they stood somewhere in between these descriptions. [It should be noted that he left all popular forms out of account and placed them together beneath static visual art that aimed to be art. The popular forms include popular music, blockbusters, and pulp fiction like Dan Brown. They had no internal hierarchy, so far as he was concerned].

Before giving my response, I must point out that my interests are primarily in the visual arts and I cannot write with equal confidence about the others. This means, first, that I was not at all happy to have them placed squarely at the bottom of his hierarchy (if such hierarchies are even possible). Second, I will have to come to their defense without being able to sufficiently humble the others. Perhaps some of you could aid me in the effort if you happen to have more general expertise.

I must admit that there was something convincing about his arguments. However, it is generally believed that art aims to reveal the kind of thing that goes beyond the boundaries of language and knowledge (of the ordinary kind, anyway). What this suggested to me was that perhaps his entire hierarchy was upside down. We can all agree that, in general, scientists, mathematicians, and philosophers probably have a greater level of knowledge than artists. However, we do not therefore conclude that they create the greatest art. In fact, artists will often disdain their kinds of knowledge as lacking the kind of insight that is properly called artistic. Could it be that, in fact, the further a type of artist is from scientists and philosophers, the greater their artistic insight? In other words, the fact that literature has more in common with these pursuits may actually work against it. Perhaps visual artists are less likely to seek out knowledge of all kinds precisely because their artistic insight is that much sharper. Perhaps what my friend called the superficial nature of paintings is merely a theoretician's misapprehension of their more directly revelatory nature.

My friend was not altogether satisfied with my response and held to his theory, telling me that based on my premises I should have concluded that the popular arts were the highest. However, I would simply exclude them altogether. I still maintain that his order is upside down and that, insofar as Art is concerned, the static visual arts are the most revelatory and the closest to artistic truth.