Indicted by a grand jury in Texas (of course) on the basis that it appeals to “prurient interest in sex” and the material holds “no serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value”.
Leaving aside the general argument about the subjectivity involved in assessing the artistic value of a piece, I would have thought it would be particularly hard to make that argument in a case where a film has been outright praised by a large body of mainstream film critics.
The likes of The New Yorker, The New York Times, LA Times, Vulture, Empire, The Washington Post, The Telgraph, The Independent, Le Monde and others have outright acclaimed the film, while even other more mixed reviews three star reviews from the likes of Rolling Stone and The Guardian have nonetheless defended its vision, its intent and praised its artistry. Plus the BIFF and Sundance awards/nominations. On that basis I can't imagine what even vaguely objective measure could be used to condemn the film for lacking artistic value.
As for the "prurient interest in sex" part, the film has been able to meet the standards of the various classification boards whose job is literally to assess the content of these films on those sort of grounds, including the BBFC who didn't even give it an 18's cert. Though I suppose they're hamstrung by actually having to watch the film before condemning it. Stupid context, ruins everything.