Villany through non-Adulation

I will remember forever the first day I met Vicky, my art teacher and mentor because she drew a line in the sand. She had over the holiday period in which my school had had to replace our art teacher, taken away all the artwork displayed and painted the walls blue.
She said to us in tones considered harsh for what was really a bludge subject 'I have taken down the art because it was not good enough, art to be displayed will be of a quality to inspire you...' or something to that effect, it was strong and it was profound. It was very athleticly competitive really.
But art is a funny thing, it has these high standards set by the renaissance masters, the surrealists, the impressionists etc. Like music it has had that many movements that now its just in a sort of open space for exploration. Music tends more to a bipolar split between purist classical people that cant jump on board any other movement (although classical has plenty of movements within its long life span) and the baby boomer anchor in the heady days of the 60's and late 70's.
But art in the visual art and traditional medium sense, doesn't tend to have problems with popularist and it is generally recognised that an artist has to be pretty fucken special and dedicated to reach the pinnacle standard of actually being able to subsist on an art derived income.
I'm totally comfortable with the art world and all its ridiculous and oft pretentious movements.
I'm not comfortable with TV though, because of a bizarre coalition of religious devotees to a show called 'Summer Heights High' religious devotees being, just about every single last person in the world I talk to these days.
And I don't know how to explain how frustrating my persecution is. But maybe to highlight, I was talking on msn with a friend today, who remarked that while they were out of the country they were missing Summer Heights High. Not an odd remark, especially when I seem to be constantly asked whether I watched it by coworkers, friends and foreign delagates alike.
What made it odd was the person was lamenting missing it without having ever seen the Show or its predecessor 'We Can Be Heroes'.
And within 20 seconds I found myself trying furiously to intelligently debate why it wasn't that great. Trying to explain to someone who had never seen the show, or any work by the maker why I didn't like it.
I call this phenomena - 'Villany Through Non-Adulation' that is to say my position on this particular show is this:

Chris Lilley is a good character actor, and some of his performances are on the money.

That's not overly critical, infact not even critical, it isn't damning of the show, nor I feel would fans of the show call me a 'contrarian'. But I seem to have my reason attacked because my take on the show is not:

Chris Lilley is a genius, Summer Heights High is a must see, it is the work of genius the likes of which have never been seen before.

Now in my view, none of those statements are true. Don't get me wrong, Summer Heights High is a hit. Dead centre, on point, it resonates with the national audiance and as good business ROI and all that shit is by all means a worthwhile activity for the ABC.
But so is Kath & Kim, The Nanny, Home Improvement, Full House, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, The Da Vinci Code, King of Queens, Everybody Loves Raymond etc.
All not the work of genius. Great business, ratings winners all, but just not genius. Some may have been smart but for the time being I seem to be under seige for not including it on this list:

Arrested Development, Garth Marenghi's Dark Place, The Office, Extras, Seinfield, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Deadwood, Rome, The Wire, John Safran vs God and Southpark.

Which is to say a list of shows that are the work of genius, because they are surprising, enthralling, captaviting and emotive. Some of the best writing, acting and production that has been seen ever. All of them are consistent and in almost all cases offer something that has never been seen before.
And having myself a list like this, of truly great shows is a good thing. But my refusal to put a show that seems to have captured popular opinion is my right that seems to land me in trouble.
Because its easy to explain why it doesn't deserve to be on there. But the act of explaining why a show doesn't deserve to be on there ends up creating a 'negative screening process' which in turn sets up a list of redundant purpose titled 'works of not genius' so instead of having a list that is a positive thing, for when I see a show so good I go 'wow I want to create something like that someday' I can file it away I have to explain in a negative frame of mind, why a show that should just be left floating on a tv schedule without much further analysis is not on there.
Like there is something wrong with me.
Ironically a show which captures the sentiment I'm getting at is Extras. Ironically Ricky Gervais as described by Stephen Fry has captured the hollowness of faim in a way that isn't just for industry insiders but is as relavant today to comedy as the british class system was in 60s-thru-80s.
The BAFTA awards sum it up beautifully with Andy Millman's catch phrase comedy being described as 'tacky shit' by the very people he seeks validation from. The difference between Chris Lilley and Andy Millman's character judging by the AFI awards reaction (which I can't find on youtube anywhere) is that Chris thinks he is some kind of Genius, where Andy Millman is not proud of his work.

And I'm sick of getting treated like some kind of villain, or jealous child, simply because I don't rate a show as high as people want me to. Character acting is a skill, Chris Lilley may well be one of the best at it, but instead of appealing to surprise, it appeals to the familiar and that is why 20 minutes of it is enough for me. 6 episodes each an hour long tries my patience. And thats just who I am, I want to be surprised.
Little Britain was a similar show but it did sometimes have some surprising exchanges. But the formula was definitely tired by the second series.
Contrast those shows to the multi-AFI award winning John Safran vs God, a show that at the time looked at diverse subject matter, had a new way to structuring interest pieces and perhaps the most brilliant part itself Safran's own ballsey approach to his relationship with his own audiance, that is as my former housemate Damo would describe it: 'he never lets his audiance get too comfortable'
That is new and surprising to me, I like Safrans form of Gonzo journalism, and his embracing of an intellectual and immature debating style, for the love of debate.
And that's a positive and wonderful thing he gives me as a viewer.

Athiests probably know this kind of villany well, and it is infuriating, because for the most part Atheists lacking an instututionalised religion have never harmed anyone, live a self determined lifestyle and have no higher power than moral behaviour.
Comparing those three simple things to even the most liberal practitioner of faith and they fall far short, but because religion and spirituality is popular, someone doing something positive, by setting standards, not prejudging, and taking responsibility for their own destiny and relations to fellow human beings, is seen as close-minded and arrogant.
But atheists have for the most part been more open minded about religion and spirituality than most, as they have probably at some point examined the need for religion and spirituality in the first place, where most others have simply made a closed minded assumption to do as their parents do.
But I find myself constantly having to explain myself and why I've taken a reasonable and personal decision, to others and somehow end up looking like the attacker.
So fuck you, fuck you all, you small minded fucks, go really look at yourselves, I'm a creative, loving and positive person also capable of critical thinking and having standards for entertainment and I'm sick of you demanding me to validate your own lack of taste, no matter how obscure mine might be to obtain.