Response from Darren Rhymes

Dear Kajsa Dahlberg,

Thank you for the invitation to reply to your open letter to
Transmission members. I have been trying to think about how to reply
to it for a while. I find it hard to formulate any 'specific ideas,
aims and beliefs' positively in terms of what I would like to change.
I think (probably because I am not so pro-active) I generally have a
feeling of a reaction to a current situation- and in this case (of the
public space of Transmission) that there are things inadequate in
relation to my desires. I very much welcome this invitation to be a
bit less woolly about this, to clarify. I imagine that you hope for a
process of working out through the language of this public space of
Transmission that a process of identification, clarification and
movement to something different might occur. If you don't mind I will
try to write some thoughts below. Sorry but they're not direct
suggestions for amendments to the objectives-

I find Transmission, at least in part, to be a self-interest group. It
is a network for the accumulation and circulation of knowledge through
a group or number of small groups. I cant really imagine a situation
where this knowledge is aggregated ( I guess that is a general
condition for art).  This circulation that takes place is also a
network of desire and one of professional development (or the
development of cultural capital that might one day be cashed in by the
individual for real capital).  There is a draw to be involved in this.

People from outside the Glasgow art scene often refer to how nice it
is that everyone seems interconnected and friends with each other
here. (I moved up from London so have experienced this shift). This is
partly due to how small Glasgow is but also I think due to what
Transmission is- a network that most people involved in art in Glasgow
pass through a relationship with. Mostly this is what transmission has
been- a network that has allowed discussion and circulation of
knowledge and also a contact and interface with the wider (now global)
art world. There is still that hang over of when Douglas Gordon and
others were involved and hooked the place up with individuals doing
things in the world beyond Glasgow. This obviously had a beneficial
effect on their individual careers.

I do not think there is much thorough consideration or discussion here
of this relationship to this (now) global network and what this means
(perhaps I am wrong). A discussion of self-organisation obviously has
a relationship to this. I think that the only recent change to the
constitution has been about the amount of commission taken on the sale
of artists' work. This came up because of Transmission's participation
in art fairs- something which in itself brought up some discontent
among some members. But this never really turned into a discussion of
what this participation meant, beyond practical questions of whether
this was an appropriate use of Transmission's resources. When actually
it is perhaps just the most visible sign of what Transmission exists
in relation to- the accumulation and circulation of knowledge/
cultural capital/ real capital within the art market.

It seemed from your letter that at least partly you are interested in a
discussion of the symbolic language of the space of Transmission (and
through that discussion a progression or change in it). This language
being what inscribes it. In terms of what has become visible within the
language of the constitution I would say that the above example is an
indicator of what is fuzzily undercurrent in the public space of
Transmission.

I am not sure any of this is very relevant to your invitation. To more
directly reply - I am interested in the possibility of
art/institution, as an actor in public space, that confronts its real
limits. I guess this would be something that is self reflexive as well
as attempts to forge relationships with 'fields' beyond its own.

I am not sure I am capable of articulating by myself  how this would
effect the objectives of the association.

In terms of the existing wording of the constitution- it seems largely
outdated and inadequate but also obviously expedient in relation to
the demands of funders and the imperatives of the Charities'
Commission. I would say this was language appearing as a result of
these outside forces rather than thoroughly self-developed.

Education of the public-
Education seems a loaded term- what kind of education and on what
terms (Paolo Freire?).
The public(s) being educated are a fairly small (as alluded to above)
and the education that is going on is probably more reciprocal one
than this slightly patriarchal sounding phrase suggests. If we make
reference to this in the objectives perhaps a more honest
self-appraisal is appropriate.

The works of those who would not normally be represented-
representation- In the late eighties I understand there was a gap in
terms of what was represented in terms of contemporary art in Glasgow.
Twenty odd years later this is no longer the case, although there
would be a big gap if Transmission wasn't here there are other things
happening. It seems a fairly directionless objective - one that falls
into ideas of the heritage of the Avant-garde and modernist innovation
or one that is easily co-opted by council regeneration policies. I
guess the suggestion is of the constantly self-reflexive which I would
approve of. But perhaps it could be more rigorously articulated.

From a mainstream cultural position I guess Transmission is still
showing what wouldn't normally be represented.

This objective also has a hint of the language of multi-culturalism
which I do not see much sign of either engagement or rejection of the
politics of.

Morality and religion. As you highlight in your letter this seems the
most obviously irrelevant- but it would seem equally weak to replace it
with a presumed secular objectivity. Certainly there should be no
necessity for placing these kind of limits in the objectives of the
association.

I have not put forward any actual suggestions  but I would be keen
for a process of activation of the language of this space and would
like to take part. That sounds like a terrible disclaimer but at this
time I feel incapable of suggesting positive changes without other
voices as interlocutors.

Best wishes,

Darren Rhymes.