One challenge of RPGs producing 'high' art, similar to literature, is that you need a talented, skilled artist. The art of literature can be reproduced and consumed on a large scale: James Joyce writes a book and everyone reads it. Most art that we experience is produced by people with 1-in-10,000 ability (as a guess; that would be 32,000 Americans) that have honed their ability throughout their lives.
In RPGs, the artists are some people you know who play occasionally. They aren't 1-in-10,000 (unless you are very lucky, and then the rest of the group is not), and they don't hone their skills as if it is a profession.
Perhaps RPGs are more like folk art, which is not an insult; folk art produces some wonderful works.
It's hard to imagine RPGs rising higher: Given the structure of them - they require personal interaction and there's way to provide no mass reproduction and consumption of the great artists - it would be hard to make a living doing them or to have your work seen, which means nobody will spend their lives honing the skills (and you need not just one person, but a group of DMs and players to create the art). People work all their lives to be great painters, great guitar players, etc.; will anyone work that hard to be a DM? Will they meet a group of similarly committed players and form a 'band'? Who will pay them? Who will ever see them? Perhaps people will watch a highly skilled group play, but for the viewers that's passive consumption - the opposite of what makes RPGs creative and artistic.
OTOH, I'd certainly pay to play with a a brilliant artist (who can master DM'ing). What an experience!
The two most promenant ones I’m aware of are The Adventure Zone and Critical Role. The first leans heavily on family, personality, and humor; the second leans heavily on structure, characterization, and voice acting (all the players are pro voice actors).
It definitely is a nascent art form, and the first 5-10 episodes of both are somewhat rough, but recent episodes have gotten quite professional.
Personally, my favorite is The Adventure Zone. The first arc, “Here There Be Gerblins,” is clearly pretty raw, but the series gets so much better by the end.
Related: https://www.polygon.com/2018/7/9/17549808/actual-play-critic...
I'm not sure that is the reason for the difference. The Odyssey has plenty of gaping holes and shoddy worldbuilding, plus some inconsistencies. For example, the plot of the very end flops IMHO (and less humbly opinionated people agree); you have to strain to give it much credit.
What I think separates it from Star Wars and most other stories ever created is its reflection of humanity. The characters and social interactions are so true and so rich - not at the superficial layer, where there are gods and magic, but at the core of anger, pride, love, compromise, fear, uncertainty, joy, power, etc. - you can look at it and deep into it forever and will never run dry.
If I can run on a bit, Dante wrote, nature takes her course from the divine mind and its art ... your art, as far as it can, follows nature as the pupil the master, so that your art is to God, as it were, a grandchild.[0] The Odyssey fulfills that, IMHO; a wonder of mortal creation.
Tangentially, Odysseus is one of the most unpleasant characters in all of literature, in deed and personality. Even on Game of Thrones he would be at the bottom of the barrel.
[0] About himself! It's in Inferno; Dante conveniently put those lines in the mouth of another character speaking to the author.
EDIT: Major edits
Star Wars is just a kids story, you really cannot compare the two.
RPG's are escapism, while real art is hard work. (Fun, but still hard work.)
There is art involved in making and playing RPG's, but the end result is not artistic.