Meh. Farting on stage can be funny. So can smashing watermelons.

I think there's a little bit more to it than just being funny. It comes down to whether you view Comedy/Tragedy as an artform.

It's the same with painting. Are painting, and/or comedy artforms?

If painting isn't an artform, the only "goal" is to make entertaining pictures.

If comedy isn't an artform, the only "goal" is to make funny antics.

If painting is an artform, the goal is to use symbolism to convey something that is worth conveying... entertainment is a secondary goal... or a conduit through which the symbolism is conveyed.

If comedy is an artform, then the goal is to use symbolism to convey something that is worth conveying... entertainment is only a secondary goal... or a conduit through which the symbolism is conveyed.

Michaelangelo, or Shakespeare were certainly artists... and they likely wouldn't have altered their work's message just so that it would be more entertaining to some low-class people who don't understand "art".

In the end, I don't think one is better than the other... one can do comedy as an artform, or not. The problem is, if you try to do comedy as an artform, and aren't really intelligent, it is often VERY unenjoyable.