Externalized standards - no more?

[Thankless]

Hello all,

Is anyone aware of any recent scholarly work (journal articles, books ...) that deals explicitly with literary criticism's standards? What distinguishes a good novel from a bad one ... I've tried running searches through the MLA bibliography, JSTOR, Project MUSE, goole scholar but could not find anything.
This strengthens a suspicion I've had for some time now that we live in a time where (?when) standards are scorned at if externalized and are countered with objections like: 'who are we to judge?', 'where do all these standards come from?', 'literature is subjective...' At the same time, if someone does not meet these supposedly non-existent, unarticulated standards (in writing for journals, or first time novelists ...) he is cast off as a bad writer.
I know this probably does not make any sense but please if you know of any such articles, books, do let me know. And tell me what you think about all of this (if it is at all intelligible behind my bad writing).

Thanks,

[dark desire]

Differentiation between high art and low art was was one of the central aspects of Modernism. Modernism said that all social values have collapsed under the pressure of modernity and modernist practices in writing and in other art forms lamented this loss. For more read Beginning Modernism by Jeff Wallace. This was the starting 3-4 decades of the 20th century.

Beyond this literature has become more of expressing cultural experiences rather than adhering to values. Even the supposedly bad literature is a cultural phenomena. The reason behind making difference between high art and low art goes deeper than what meets the eye. I won't be able to express it as nicely as Tim Woods has expressed in the acclaimed book - Beginning Postmodernism.

[Thankless]

Thank you so much for taking the trouble to reply.

It is true that any text holds cultural/socio-historical values, in that it gives insight into the society from which it has emerged. Such values are subjects of study for many different disciplines: history, anthropology, ... For example, poems by Elizabeth I are studied by historians and literary critics not because they rival those of Marlowe and Shakespeare as poems, but simply because they were written by Elizabeth I and may reveal some of her perspectives, may shed light on her relationships ... etc. But I do not think anyone can say that Elizabeth's poetry is better than that of Sir Philip Sydney, for instance. It may hold more social, cultural, ... value, may be more useful in telling us things about Renaissance England, but it is not better literature.
In this respect, I did not see your reply as an answer to my question, because I was not asking about extrinsic values different texts may have (cultural, social, economic, political ...) but of their literary values upon which distinctions such as good/bad that we all make are based. More specifically, if there was any scholarly work today that externalizes (puts in writing) the characterstics that differentiate good/bad ...

Finally, in your mind does high/low equal good/bad? Is all 'high' literature good and all 'low' literature bad? I am merely asking, so that we can have a discussion - from which we will both hopefully benefit - about a specific point. My question was about good/bad, an evaluative spectrum specific to literature, not the conditions of its production, as high/low may be taken to reflect class or readership ...

I hope I've made more sense this time,
Thanks again.