"Yes, there is Canadian art." So says Denver. Yes: Denver.

This morning, a reader sent me a link to a story in the Denver Post by its Fine Arts Critic discussing a show of young Canadian artists there. He seems dumbstruck that not only are there people actually making art in Canada -- the shock! -- but that -- Good God! -- it's contemporary, topical, technologically savvy, and relevant! (The show includes Toronto artist Alex McLeod (above) and Sobey nominee Brendan Tang.)

Of course, we have to take this for what it is, which is a piece by writer in Denver. Nonetheless, I don't care much for his tone -- as though he were an anthropologist wandering the rain forests of Borneo and coming across a lost tribe. If he spent any time in Berlin, Basel or Frankfurt (or New York, for that matter!) he wouldn't be so surprised; the Canadian presence is more powerful there than it is at home, for heaven's sake.

Whatever the case, the piece is complimentary, smacks of a fair degree of ignorance, particularly for someone whose function is assumably to cover art (ever heard of Jeff Wall? Stan Douglas? General Idea? Michael Snow? Hello?). Which we like, don't we? Then again, when our own museums privilege figures like Anselm Kiefer and Julian Schnabel over our own talent, it's hard to blame anyone for being surprised by Canadian art. And I suppose I have to admit to being less than versed on what Denver has to offer (America, as defined by the twin poles of New York and Los Angeles, somewhat more so). Above all, though, it strikes me that Denver, of all places, oughtn't look down its nose at, well, anyone.

Comments

[Jim Joe]

I think you oughtn't look down your nose at that article. I didn't pick up on anything other than praise for the quality of the work included, and furthermore readers are urged to broaden their horizons and look for more Canadian artists.

Why so angry, Murray?

[Murray Whyte]

That's a question for my team of therapists, Jim Joe. They're working on it, trust me ... I know the piece was complimentary; but I think it's fair to be frustrated at its tone of minor incredulity, if not at the author himself, who can't fairly be blamed for not knowing much about at in Canada; though it's hardly a cottage industry, with a number of big players. I find pats on the head from our neighbour to the south a little irksome; who wouldn't?

[david]

Over the pond the viewpoint is even worse, there is a London centric vision of art that dominates the media with a reluctance to accept that any art exists outside of London, and a general antipathy towards anything that is using new technologies. I found the mindblowing work of Alex McLeod through the epic Rojo festival in Sao Paulo. Now there is a city that loves art without looking at it's origin to define it. You are right to be irked by the mild patronising tone which to me reflects a view of Canada as less sophisticated hillbilly cousins. Now I am based in the UK so, I only know what I see and hear, but I hear this loud and clear.

[Pete Smith]

Are we allowed to be just as surprised that there's an art scene in Denver?

[Murray Whyte]

Nicely put, David. Thanks for that.

And Pete: There's an art scene in Denver? Seriously?

Well, they do have this:

http://www.c-villecameraclub.org/Larry%20Goss/slides/Denver%20Art%20Museum%20Architect%20Daniel%20Libeskind.html

Look familiar?

[Ivar Zeile]

As the owner of Plus Gallery, the host of the exhibition commented on by the Denver Post art critic, I'd like to provide some insight and hopefully clarifications. I personally felt very fortunate to get a full-page review for our efforts, they are not easy to come by and more-so for artists outside of the general communities knowledge. Denver has an amazing art scene and I took some amount of heat for looking outside our own talent pool to do this exhibition, but I also chose to focus on Canadian artists for a reason.

Reason #1: There is tremendous talent in the Canadian scene and I am pretty sure not too many people in my neck of the woods (which in the western united states can span a long way) are familiar with any of it. These artists, although Canadian, are doing the kind of work I want to represent.

Reason #2: I proposed the exhibition (as a commercial gallery mind you) to the powers that be behind the new “Biennial of the Americas” concept that Denver was set to inaugurate this summer. My intuition was that not a single curator or gallery would even think that Canada should be a part of this endeavor……and you know, I was right, and how odd is that.

Reason #3: I have spent a lot of time in Canada in my life, have always had family there and in general have always felt at least partly Canadian. The focus of my operation is on both established and emerging talent from Denver, and a number of my artists would amaze anyone who had the opportunity to come across their work. Unfortunately very few people do, almost nobody outside of Denver looks for quality contemporary art in Denver. Is the same the case for much of the quality artwork being generated in Canada? I have no idea, but I personally don’t know anyone following it and the excitement of presenting it as a unique and rare exhibition was a thrill for me. The fact that it has generated any dialogue because of MacMillan’s review is another thrill and positive moment for us.

By the way, I know the limitations of art critics and really anyone involved in this business, there are many. I sometimes read how things are worded and cringe, but Kyle is one of the most astute critics we have here in Denver and his article has piqued a lot of people’s interest in the show and work.

Thanks for hearing me out, please visit our website to learn more at http://www.plusgallery.com

[Peter]

I am not so sure Denver art is disconnected from landscape, One of the things that I find to be the best things about being an artist living in Denver (for the time being) is that it is a bubble. I am able to work without outside influence.... When i was working and creating on the east coast I was so competitive and trying to keep up with what other artists were doing, here in Denver I am more apt to stay at home and work on my work.
I think the writer of this blog (Murray Whyte) was expressing an attitude that mirrors the attitude of many people in larger cities throughout the world, when it comes to what is happening in Denver, he writes "Of course, we have to take this for what it is, which is a piece by writer in Denver. "

I had a studio visit from the Dean of Columbia Universities MFA program ( Gregory Amenoff), while on a residency on the east coast, who asked me where I was living , I told him I was living in Denver, and He said "what's going on in Denver?" I said "I dunno, I just moved there" He said " Well I can tell you that there is nothing going on Denver, you can move to Nashville or Greensboro and there is something going on there, but Denver ? I never hear of anything happening in Denver" Which is why I decided to come to Denver. Because I wanted to be part of a landscape, to be trapped and NOT able to drive to a major American city to see a major exhibit or gallery showing, here in Denver you get what is given to you by the gallery owners and the 2 Art Museums. If you want more you better be prepared to fly to another city or be satiated with images from magazines and the internet.

We as Denverites are beholden to the landscape, we are whether we like it or not landscape artists. There are a number of galleries and artists here in the area that are working to create a more dynamic environment for the arts, but we do not have the luxury of taking a day trip to DC or taking a day trip to NYC to see a show, we just cannot do that. This is one of the strengths and weakness of Denver art

[LeanneGoebel]

Yes. I think you are rightly allowed to question whether or not there is an art scene in Denver. As a Colorado based art writer, I found Kyle MacMillan's piece a bit provincial. I know Kyle is not that at all, but we all have our moments where we write something that is taken differently than we intended.

"... it's hard to find anything about the selections that come off as especially Canadian. Like artists working almost everywhere else today, these five are working in what has become a kind of shared international aesthetic," MacMillan writes. Uh. Duh. That seems like a very obvious statement. Maybe Kyle needs to get out more. See the sites. What's happening around the country, let alone around the world.

"If anything stands out historically about Canadian art, it has been a connection to the landscape. Like the United States, Canada is a vast country with a multifaceted geography that has strongly shaped its growth and identity," sounds to me like McMillan is hoping Canada is more like Colorado, a place that can't seem to get beyond the landscape--the mountains--the scenery.

"The closest to something natural is suggested in Andrew Rucklidge's paintings of mountains. But it's quickly obvious that these mostly abstract works, with their energetic swishes of color, are not meant to depict anything specific," McMillan writes. Again a very obvious and basic definition of abstraction. These paintings were divine.

My questions are these: Why does art have to look Canadian or Coloradan or even South American? Why can't it just look like art? And isn't art in the Americas the most diverse melting pot of cultures supposed to be diverse and international? And why do we continue to be surprised to find interesting, challenging and well-made art being made outside of New York, LA, London or Shanghai?

[Murray Whyte]

I'm with Leanne: Definition by region is so pre-Modern. In all seriousness, I loathe generalization (generally speaking, of course) and it's a simplistic approach to see a show of five Canadian artists and then attempt to define something about "Canadian art," in the general sense, from it.

Conceptualism didn't pass us by, you know; we had a few mioments here and there after the nature boys stopped painting mountains and trees. And there's a bloody vibrant contemporary scene here, exploding coast to coast. If Mr. MacMillan would like to understand this evolution further, he can check out "Traffic," the multi-venue exhibtion of the history of Canadian conceptualism that, as luck would have it, opens in a few weeks.

More than anything, I'm grateful for our Denver colleagues' contributions. And in all respect to Mr. MacMillan -- whose job I know first hand isn't easy -- please don't take it personally. You've generated a good discussion here.

[Moniker]

This response article is a farce.

This discussion only further illustrates how great Canadians are at sarcastically mocking Americans for their lack of knowledge about us. In short, complete f---ery.

Quit wasting your time writing articles complaining about Americans and start writing insightful things about the many Canadian artists whom most Canadians have never even heard about.

you have the platform... use it to create... jackass

[Murray Whyte]

Wow -- and you thought I had anger issues, Jim Joe. Yeesh.

That's a lot of tough talk, Moniker. Care to put a name to it? I do -- every day.

And as to how I use my platform, I think it speaks for itself; if you don't know that, you're just not paying attention -- and embarrassing yourself in the process. That's the only "farce," here, friend. Thanks for reading ... a little, anyway. I wouldn't presume to expect more ...