The canon is not the same as the orthodox. The canon is the body of works that have defined the art form. They are good, and they invite regard while defying measurement. Orthodoxy is about rules and patterns, types and archetypes, and rigid structures.

The canon is about the works. Orthodoxy demands to be the general rule. The canon is about absolute specifics. Orthodoxy is a requirement for a prospective pattern of behaviour contingent on various conditions. The canon is merely a fact: it has already happened.

We can ignore the canon or embrace it, but there is nothing that we can do to it.

The importance of the problem of deciding what is a canonical work is greatly overstated: the canon is not an orthodoxy, so it need never be reduced to a definitive list or set of rules. It remains both valid and valuable as a category of works despite the fact that there is little consensus on what is on the list.

I think that the influence of the canon is both profound and inescapable, so I choose to embrace it and learn as much as I possibly can about seminal works. As to adding to the canon? Well, one lives in hope.