Vertical axis [imitative art/creative art]:

From the most imitative arts (up) to the most creative arts (down): the most imitative arts have the greatest possibilities to imitate nature, the most creative arts have the fewest. That is, the vertical axis compares different arts by ordering them by the degree of similarity that is possible to reach when representing real objects (e.g. when the content is nature).

Suppose you want to artistically reproduce e.g. a cat. From the most creative to the most imitative arts, you have:
--software development (*), calligraphy and fireworks have abstract contents: they don't describe nature at all. So, purely creative arts.
--music: it can make "meow" only, all the rest is pure form. So, it's very poorly imitative. Usually the cat doesn't be recognizable from the music unless the composition's title is "cat".
--dance: it can imitate the cat's movements only (but the cat is still hardly recognizable). Little more imitative than music.
--architecture: one might project a cat-shaped building. So, architecture may be more imitative than the above arts (a cat can at least be recognizable from the shape of the building).
--literature: The imitative power of words goes one big step farther. It can provide much more details of the cat to the reader's imagination.
--drama: it is literature plus human contributions: in addition to the words, an actor may also pretend to be a cat and imitate its movements. Thus, similarity increases.
--sculpture: it provides the exact 3D shape of the cat. Such accuracy couldn't be obtained from the use of words only, hence sculpture is more imitative than literature and drama.
--drawing/painting: they provide more realism than sculpture (colors, backgrounds, ...), and it is possible to render 3D depth.
--animation: it is drawing/painting plus motion. The cat can now behave like a real cat, so animation is much more imitative than drawing/painting alone.
--photography: trivially, a photo is closer to reality than animations.
--cinematography: photography plus motion.
--mathematics: exact description of the language of the nature, which is part of the nature itself. Even if it has little to do with the aspect of cats, mathematics is science: hence, by definition, it is the most accurate description of the nature.
--physics: exact description of the nature by means of its own language, the mathematics. Physics can describe each atom of the cat's body.

(*) Although the output of a software can be the image of a cat, the essence of the software consists of the procedures/routines that generates its output. From an artistic point of view, the software's output is seldom really interesting. Observe that, on the contrary, when architects use software to make architectural plans, the software is only the tool and its output is the artwork.

Horizontal axis [beauty of the form/beauty of the content]:

From the arts where the form is the biggest part of content (left) to the arts where the form takes little part of the content (right). That is, the horizontal axis compares different arts by displacing them in increasing order of predominance of the form over the content. This indicates how much the form is the content itself.

E.g. in mathematics the whole content is form, whereas in literature form and content have comparable importance: it is possible to describe ugly subjects using beautiful words (i.e. to produce art without taking care of the content) or to describe beautiful subjects using poor and simple language (i.e. to produce art without taking care of the form).

Form and abstraction are closely related: as the content becomes more abstract, the content becomes form and the form becomes content. So, in the arts where the content can be (or can only be) abstract, the form bears greater importance than the content.

From those arts where form is much of the content to those where content prevails over form, you have:
--mathematics and physics: they provide a description of the artwork's subject by means of pure form only. Being the content the form itself, such description is indeed an exact description.
--software development: like mathematics/physics, it involves abstract contents only, and these contents are themselves form. Except for bugs, a software is an exact procedure/routine, hence software development provides an exact description of its subjects.
--calligraphy: here it is seen as the art of creating a complete character set (such as a computer font). Except for writer's inevitable lack of accuracy, letters are complex geometric figures: so, the content is almost purely abstract and coincides almost totally with the form itself.
--music: the content is almost entirely pure form. However, some contents that are separated from form exist: unless the composition's title indicates the subject (it seldom happens: most of the titles relate to the form and/or the involved musical instruments, such as "concerto for piano and orchestra", "prelude and fugue", "sonata for violin", and so on...) typical contents that emancipate from the form are feelings/sensations or environments/atmospheres. Thus, with respect to the above arts, in music content and form slightly begin moving apart.
--dance: like music, the content is almost entirely pure form. However, the possibility of imitating things through movements and the possibility of conceiving the performance of a group of dancers allow some contents to be separated from form. I think that gap to be fainly greater than in music.
--architecture: the content is clearly separated from form. However, a building is subject to many constraints, being to be durable over time and comfortable for human living. If an architect projected beautiful buildings without any other care, these buildings would probably collapse before they are completed. So, since the contents are limited by external factors, I assign to the beauty of the form greater importance than the beauty of the content.
--literature: as discussed above, form and content has similar importance. The beauty of the form regards the style of writing, use of figures of speech, richness and variety of the language, rhymes, ... The beauty of the content is the beauty of the mental image that the text has provided to the reader. Both are fundamental aspects of the text.
--drama: it is literature plus human interpretative contributions. The form lying within the text usually loses importance if compared with literature alone, since the purpose of the dramatic text is to be recited and to be part of a fictional work. It often happens that actors modify the text that they have to recite: this couldn't happen when declaiming a poem. Moreover, the requirement of interesting subjects and plots is essential in every fictional work, while poetry can spend thousand of words for describing a flower. Also, the dramatic text (within which it lies much of the form) don't be conceived to be enjoyed without the rest of the fictional work. So, in drama the beauty of the form, with respect to the beauty of the dramatic content, is less important than in literature.
--animation: the painting (or the photo) of an object can be ugly, but the animation (or the film) of the movements of the object can be beautiful. So in animation and cinematography the form has greater importance than static visual arts (sculpture, drawing/painting, photography). In fact, movement is form: it can make beautiful an ugly stationary subject, such as an ugly dancer. Among the 5 senses, from sight we get the largest amount of information, so visual contents are the most explicit ones. Therefore, visual arts (except architecture, discussed above) are positioned at the bottom of this list because the ratio form/content is unbalanced in favor of the content.
--cinematography: it is made up by photos. In photos the contents are taken from reality with obvious verisimilitude, hence there is fewer space for style, technique and possibility of abstraction. That is, for form.
--sculpture: it can be thought as 3D panting with larger availability of media but greater limits in describing nature. Since it is less imitative than painting, I assume that the importance of the form with respect to the content is greater than in drawing/painting. Being motionless, it comes after cinematography.
--drawing/painting: the form regards the use of color, light, perspective. The content is what is being depicted. More imitative than sculpture.
--photography: as discussed for cinematography, there is little processing between reality and the content. The (static) subject is quite directly taken from reality. The skills of a photographer include the ability to find himself in the right place at the right moment: this is the triumph of the content over the form.
--fireworks: being art is questionable. Almost pure content without form.

Quantized arts: 
The artwork is a collection of simple entities, the "quanta" (singular: "quantum").
Quanta can be e.g. bits, words/letters, musical notes, symbols (e.g. typographic characters) and numbers, ...

The quantized arts I listed are: mathematics, physics and software development. They all involve similar types of quanta: symbols and numbers.
            
Quantizable arts: 
The artwork can be quantized, i.e. transformed in a collection of quanta. The quantizable arts I listed are:
--music: a musical composition consists of a sequence of simple notes or chords. It can be stored in MIDI files.
--dance: it is a sequence of simple movements. It could be performed by a robot.
--calligraphy: a character set is a collection of simple geometric entities. It can be vectorized to become a digital computer font.
--architecture: like calligraphy, the architectural plan consists of a collection of simple geometric entities. Even if the building is a physical object, today its project is entirely digital, i.e. quantized.
--literature: a collection of simple words or symbols, can be stored in text files.