I know this can't completely answer your question, but I'll give you an indirect answer anyway. There is a great debate about the composition of "low" and "high" poems. Is the highest poem the most beautiful? This has become very tricky. If so, who is the correct judge of aesthetics?
Most poems are created in the commercial society, so will the most profitable poems be the "highest" form of poetry? This seems to be wrong. ...
There are classics of "great" poets, but they are all writers of the same culture, usually pieced together by the most powerful or outstanding people in society. They choose the "highest" form of poetry according to their own values and exclude other marginalized people. Some of the greatest poets-Shakespeare-are not as popular in their own time as they were in the later period of history. Indeed, the greatness of poetry varies from time to time.
Many poets oppose other poets, aiming to write poems in a higher form than before. All poets copy important traditional poems. Some people say that minimalism is the greatest form of writing, while others aim at epic and minimalist texts.
You, us and many other social, historical and material forces have helped to establish what is considered the "highest" form of poetry.
However, it is true that some poems only touched us in some ways, while others did not. They caught us in a unique way. They may be scribbled on dyed napkins or written in gold ink. We can understand some poems as "good" and exclude other types of poems from "bad", but this makes some people speechless.
Should we just grasp the cultural definition of "elegant art"-or should we be eager to challenge the cultural definition and make culture more inclusive?
There is no good answer. In my opinion, the highest poem is anything that helps to amplify silence.