For as long as there's been art, there have been people attempting to assert that their view of what makes art "good" is better than another's. Some would posit that the ensuing arguments about art are what in fact makes art worthwhile, as humans debate their various worldviews through the catalysts of film, music, television, books, paintings, sculpture, etc.

Thus, when one man decided he'd had enough of all this arguing and decided to list what objectively constitutes "good" art and "bad" art, it was perhaps unsurprising that his take was largely dunked on.

On Sunday, Twitter user Jash Dholani, a writer who appears to have an affinity for classical art and aesthetics, posted a chart in which he attempted to codify what makes art "good" and what makes art "bad."

"The most annoying people in the world love to say there is no objective difference between good art and bad art, so I made a list of 15," he wrote in his contentious post.

According to Dholani, "Good art" "improves mood," "believes in beauty" and "wishes to be canonic" while "Bad art" "makes you feel weird," "spits on beauty" and "wishes to destroy the canon," among other diametrically opposed differences.

The chart took a couple of days to begin spreading on Twitter / X, but once it did, it was widely lambasted. Many read it as aligning with fascist views of art, while others joked the chart itself fit right alongside its definition of "Bad art."

Dohlani has been defiant in the face of the criticism his chart has received, calling his critics "communists with pronouns and mental illness in bio" and tweeting an image of Donald Trump as Pepe the Frog, begging the question of if Dohlani considers that meme "Good art."