One of the big distinctions in general is between "art" and "entertainment". High-level entertainment is just as good as art - but the former depends on a sudden shock of recognition. The effect that it gives comes in discrete "jumps" and is not continuous. Consequently there can be no question of "style" - the only important thing is the sheer
of the effect each time. An example of this is the satire and strong parody of Terry Pratchett, or the more elementary (but very skilful) humor in
or the early "Dilbert" cartoon strips. The effect is purely combinatory - it depends on finding the
combination of ideas - but unlike in the case of music or "art" cinema, the specific flavor of it is not important, and we don't care about how the details might continuously vary. (Examples of high-level entertainment, rather than art: Moliere, Pratchett, Wilde, Wodehouse, Goldsmith, Sheridan, the best of Karl Kraus, the best of Mencken, some Woody Allen films [not that I've seen any of these].)
"Art" can be defined (i.e., distinguished from what is not art) in terms of a simple part-whole relation. One extreme is when every kind of continuous variation in any part of something (e.g., a painting) is such that it noticeably changes the effect that arises from the whole object. But even with the other extreme (e.g. large-scale novels), there are components within with with the preceding property, in which the parts and whole are so connected together.
But notice: almost every straightforward analogy about this between the different forms of art (e.g., how the color does not matter in architecture, and so the "color" should not matter in "X") is a false analogy, for a very simple reason: it all depends on the particular subject matter. And that depends, in turn, on how the human memory works. One very clear illustration of this: in terms of the area around the eyes, humans can recognize someone's face to a very minute degree. Everyone (of a given racial group) looks approximately the same around the eyes, and yet the minute differences constitute how you recognize one person rather than another. But the human mind is not trained to do the same thing with other objects, or even other parts of the human body - a minute or continuous change in any "part" is not noticed. So the part-whole relation depends on the subject matter (whether it is visual art, or music, or even sculpture as opposed to visual art). IOW: painting depends to a great degree on color exactly because the subject matter is a portrait, or landscape, or an object of a certain sort that humans are already familiar with.
Note that the classification (like all good classifications) is not strict: we have that David Lynch spans both "art" and "entertainment". But the most interesting part of Lynch is the entertainment - that is, the level of effect rather than flavor of effect. Lynch films are explicitly metaphorical. Here is a parody of a Lynch film, they are actually pretty easy to make (you just apply the same techniques over and over):