This gets into some complicated areas of the concept of objectivity in art. Philosophers have bungled around with this conversation quite literally for centuries, and there’s been different patterns of consensus about it.

The current consensus is essentially that there are in fact standards to art (or in this case humor as a craft), and that it can not simply be chalked up to a collective matter of pure subjectivity. For example it would be exceptionally difficult to argue, aside from doing it in an awkwardly forced devils advocate sort of way, that a random person off the street attempting to paint a depiction of the night sky for the first time (especially if they had never painted anything at all before) would make a better painting than Vincent Van Gogh’s “The Starry Night”.

The consensus is also that if someone claimed to prefer the random strangers painting over Vincent Van Gogh, that their opinion would be entirely valid as a personal rendering of what they most enjoy looking at, but it would reflect very poorly on their ability to discern what makes something “good art”. It would insinuate a lack of effort in their life in regards to investigating the medium to its fullest extent, and therefore just a preference that’s born out of ignorance.