I am writing to express my concern about any rumours that have been spread regarding Bea Gibson and her involvement with the net.art site nungu. I have contributed to nungu and have been closely informed of its development since its inception. From that standpoint I want to make clear that Bea is the founder of nungu. She instigates its projects and has been a constant throughout. She invited me to contribute to a project and I was fully aware that nungu is about collaboration and the participation of different individuals. Nungu does not engage in claims of sole-authorship or individual copyright and the idea that any individual should retrospectively assert as such in an attempt to damage the reputation of nungu and its founder saddens me.
I would like to affirm that Bea is an artist and individual of great integrity and I am alarmed at any individual who would try to question this. I hope that you can ignore claims that belittle what has always been a discursive and intellectually collaborative site.
Yours sincerely,
Laura Bartlett
Gagosian Gallery
www.gagosian.com
nungu
-
Type: discussion
Comments
I am writing to express my concern about any rumours that have been spread regarding Bea Gibson and her involvement with the net.art site nungu. I have contributed to nungu and have been closely informed of its development since its inception. From that standpoint I want to make clear that Bea is the founder of nungu. She instigates its projects and has been a constant throughout. She invited me to contribute to a project and I was fully aware that nungu is about collaboration and the participation of different individuals. Nungu does not engage in claims of sole-authorship or individual copyright and the idea that any individual should retrospectively assert as such in an attempt to damage the reputation of nungu and its founder saddens me.
I would like to affirm that Bea is an artist and individual of great integrity and I am alarmed at any individual who would try to question this. I hope that you can ignore claims that belittle what has always been a discursive and intellectually collaborative site.
Yours sincerely,
Laura Bartlett
Gagosian Gallery
www.gagosian.com
In a message dated 8/22/2002 10:12:31 AM Central Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:
> nungu and its founder saddens me.
> I would like to affirm that Bea is an artist and individual of great
> integrity and I am alarmed at any individual who would try to question
> this. I hope that you can ignore claims that belittle what has always been
> a discursive and intellectually collaborative site.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Laura Bartlett
> Gagosian Gallery
> www.gagosian.com
I'd rather explore than ignore.
So if the other person–Rawlley?–is still onlist, I'd listen to more, and
object if you were kicked offlist. However it doesn't seem cut and dried.
Anyone else please comment on this? Rachel?
Max
++
that was a great site!!!!!!!
[email protected] wrote:In a message dated 8/22/2002 10:12:31 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:
nungu and its founder saddens me.
I would like to affirm that Bea is an artist and individual of great integrity and I am alarmed at any individual who would try to question this. I hope that you can ignore claims that belittle what has always been a discursive and intellectually collaborative site.
Yours sincerely,
Laura Bartlett
Gagosian Gallery
www.gagosian.com
I'd rather explore than ignore.
So if the other person–Rawlley?–is still onlist, I'd listen to more, and object if you were kicked offlist. However it doesn't seem cut and dried.
Anyone else please comment on this? Rachel?
Max
++
FRESH FISH
CHINESE TAKE AWAY
———————————
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs, a Yahoo! service - Search Thousands of New Jobs
>> In a message dated 8/22/2002 10:12:31 AM Central Daylight Time,
>>[email protected] writes:
>>
>> nungu and its founder saddens me.
>> I would like to affirm that Bea is an artist and individual of great
>> integrity and I am alarmed at any individual who would try to question
>> this. I hope that you can ignore claims that belittle what has always been
>> a discursive and intellectually collaborative site.
>>
>> Yours sincerely,
>>
>> Laura Bartlett
>> Gagosian Gallery
>> www.gagosian.com
> Then on 8/22/02 5:02 PM, [email protected] [email protected] ecrit :
>
> I'd rather explore than ignore.
>
> So if the other person–Rawlley?–is still onlist, I'd listen to more, and
> object if you were kicked offlist. However it doesn't seem cut and dried.
>
> Anyone else please comment on this? Rachel?
>
Laura, Max, Vishal, Members of Rhizome_Raw email list,
Hello all, although there is no real art-police on Rhizome, your decision to
bring this matter before our wise and thoughtful memebers, (albeit a rather
eccentric community of digizens), has been the right decision since this
email list is a good place to begin the probing into the details of the past
incidents/accusation regarding the Beatrice (a.k.a. Bea) and the Net.art
scandal that surrounds it.
With that said, Laura Bartlett, I am unfortunate to say that I am agree with
max Herman that the "ignoring" of information regarding this incident
whether it proves false in the end is a rather ignorant thing to suggest we
all should do. (max - what's a Latin or Greek cliche for ignorance?)
Now getting to the point, or at least the point that I understand, is that
Gungu http://www.nungu.com is a collaborative website which invites artist
to make work, such as "Mrs. Jeevan Jham"
http://www.nungu.com/[mrs.%20jeevam%20jham]
and "Masala_x"
http://www.nungu.com/[masala_x]/
Both of which Vishal Rawlley is claiming was her idea.)
Now Rhizome has given Bea a grant for the collective and Bea has decide to
take the money and run, leaving other other contributors without a piece of
pie (I am presuming the contributors are the main artistic force behind
nungu, where as Bea is the founder, supportor, money, server space etc,
publicity, and what not). Which is why Vishall feels cheated out of the
grant money and more importantly artistic credit.
If that's the case then:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Either Rhizome should reconsider the grant and investigate the facts and
decide who Nungu really is and how the moeny shall be doled out in order for
the project to continue.
-or-
Bea gives the artist credit for collaborations and divides the grant money
appropriately. (dividing the money at this point might be moot now that one
claimed "core" member of the collective upset, the basic fabric of nungu
might cease to exist, therefor forfeiting the money altogether.)
Any other options or facts to be placed on the table?
-muserna
"""""
( 0 0) <- Ever seen a bucktooth dino with hair?
}. .{ Don't laugh, but you have now.
–uu-
`-' Goofy Dinos only at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~hairymuseum/gdotw
——— ORIGINAL EMAIL BELOW BY Vishal Rawlley ———-
///"
( 0-0 )
\_=_/
To,
The Selection Committee
Rhizome’s Net Art Commissions 2002
Re: The grant awarded to Beatrice Gibson of nungu.com
Respected Board Members,
This is to bring to your notice that Miss Beatrice Gibson of nungu.com in
her grant application to Rhizome has faked facts with the willful intent to
cheat the grant authorities and has thus been awarded the grant on a false
basis.
Beatrice Gibson (a British citizen based in Mumbai since year 2000)
functions as a curator/ editor of nungu.com and pays for its server space
and other infrastructure. Nungu.com was offered as a free online space to
artists and media creators to host online projects. A collective of artists
– most of whom are Indian nationals based in Mumbai –
contributed to nungu.com since its inception in September 2000 till March
2001. The collective has since disbanded.
I have been a contributor to nungu.com as an artist since its inception in
September 2000 till February this year. Since August 2001 till February
2002, the ‘nungu collective’ consisted of me and Miss Gibson
alone. During this period all art projects hosted on nungu.com have been my
contributions, namely ‘Masala_x and ‘Mrs. Jeevan Jham’.
Miss Gibson has never individually contributed a single project to the
oeuvre of ‘nungu projects’ till date. She has, however, been a
collaborator on some projects only in the capacity of a logistical
coordinator and assistant graphic designer. Yet she has made false claims
and taken undue credit in her proposal application to Rhizome (see:
www.nungu.com/[update[02] ) which I enumerate below:
1. Miss Gibson in her application proposes to build on an existing
project entitled Mrs. Jeevan Jham. I feel deeply violated as this is
completely my project in conception and design. I have sufficient proof and
witnesses to confirm this. I reserve the right to continue work on this
project and have never granted permission to anyone to build on it. It was a
work-in-progress when I severed my ties with nungu in February this year.
Miss Gibson has wrongly appropriated this work as her own and hence her
proposal to Rhizome is completely illegitimate.
2. Miss Gibson has applied for the grant to Rhizome as a
‘collective of artists’ and the grant is supposedly to benefit
this collective. However, in reality this collective did not exist at the
time Miss Gibson applied for the grant and now Miss Gibson is the sole
beneficiary of the grant. The grant application attempts to hide this fact.
3. In the resume attached to the grant proposal, Miss Gibson has
willfully deleted any trace of other contributors to nungu.com. No
individual names are mentioned except hers. She has thus attempted to
deceitfully imply that she is single-handedly responsible for the entire
‘nungu project’. Even her resume and nungu’s resume are
written concurrently. But in actual fact, she has never individually
authored a single project hosted on nungu.com..
I have made Miss Gibson aware about the complaints against her. She has
accepted that the omission of individual names from the resume and in other
places on the website is a serious mistake. She has since sent me a detailed
credit list with all individuals correctly credited; except that she has
falsely credited herself in all places. She is still incorrectly implying
that she was a ‘collaborating artist’ on projects where she
simply acted as a ‘coordinator’ or as ‘assistant graphic
designer’. She also wrongly continues to claim that ‘Mrs. Jeevan
Jham’ was co-authored by her along with me. This is not true and even
if it were, she still has no right to individually start building on
something which she singularly doesn’t own and without informing or
asking the permission of the co-author/s.
I am deeply distressed and feel completely exploited. I was contributing to
nungu without pay as an independent artist and the projects I contributed
are personal projects that have been developed at my own time and expense. I
am writing to you with the sincere hope that you shall be able to help me
secure my right to continue work on a project which is in fact mine. If my
charges are not addressed/ redressed, I could easily come across as a
disgruntled and jealous person making an unnecessary hue and cry. Thus by
writing to you I am taking the great risk of putting my personal honor and
reputation at stake. I believe that you shall be understanding and just in
your opinion. If you need any further details or clarifications from my end
I shall be most willing to provide it. Thank you.
Regards,
Vishal Rawlley
In a message dated 8/22/2002 8:07:21 PM Central Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:
> Which is why Vishall feels cheated out of the
> grant money and more importantly artistic credit.
>
Which also brings up the issue of plagiarism online.
Basically a Defamation/Plagiarism debate? That's like hyper-gray legal
terrain. Similar as with the nature quilt praps.
George Bush
genius2000.net
++
on 8/22/02 9:18 PM, [email protected] [email protected] ecrit :
> George Bush
> genius2000.net
Can't you go to prison for pretending to be the president?
-a.s.
In a message dated 8/22/2002 9:27:56 PM Central Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:
> > George Bush
> > genius2000.net
>
> Can't you go to prison for pretending to be the president?
I obviously meant it as a spoof and hopefully the context would confirm that,
however I retract it and state clearly that it was just a spoof.
It's an obvious joke and there is maybe a reasonable defense based on
artistic merit. But seriously, if it's illegal–well even if it isn't I'm
not doing it anymore.
So I would clarify and retract that and I sincerely hope no one took it as a
literal statement, just a foolish and inappropriate listserv comment.
I would recommend everybody refrain from mentioning copyright or legal issues
on this board if the rules of commentary are not clear, which clearly under
the DMCA and defamation they are not.
So without taking any sides, and retracting my ill-advised FALSE SIGNATURE
previously mentioned which was what I felt to be an obvious spoof, I would
prefer not to comment any further on the legal matters surrounding NUNGU.
The legal terrain is just too iffy to even speculate on the case, and I have
no intention of making rash insinuations of character based my total LACK of
information about the NUNGU situation.
Until these regulations and precedents are clear for online discourse those
not involved in legal proceedings essentially need to sit at the sidelines,
regardless of our sympathies or opinions.
Best Regards,
Max Herman
genius2000.net
++
In a message dated 8/22/2002 9:58:06 PM Central Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:
> Can't you go to prison for pretending to be the president?
Obviously I was not pretending to be anything: it was an obvious spoof or
joke to anyone who knows the context of this list. I apologize for offending
anyone but would prefer to be CLEAR that that was a spoof and in no way meant
to be anything but obvious about that.
It was however inappropriate and I sincerely retract it and apologize for any
confusion.
Best regards,
Max Herman
genius2000.net
++
I just want to go on record as saying that I knew George Bush during his
college days and he liked to eat dog shit and lick urinals for the piss that
was washed up on the inner lining.
No wait, that was another George Bush. (Or was it?)
-
George Bush III
To those interested,
I think I need to clarify that my previous email was written merely to express my support for Bea Gibson. I happen to work at Gagosian Gallery in London – but my connection to Bea and nungu is completely independent of this. Thanks! Laura
— Pet Name <[email protected]> wrote:
>Any other options or facts to be placed on the table?
This sounds like a internal conflict. Sounds like
someone is getting screwed. This being said…the
Rhizome community can talk about it but is not going
to fix Nungu's problem. What can be done is to go back
to whomever the contact person is at Nunga and ask
them to clarify / update the bio on the Rhizome site.
It reads now as:
+++
TELEMATIC SURVEILLANCE
by Nungu (Bombay & London/Maharashtra/India & UK)
The project proposes an exploration of forms of
'hypercontrol' present in societies infused with
communication and information technology
networkstelematic surveillance.
Currently based in Bombay India, Nungu is a fluid
collective of national and international media artists
working together towards the creation of networked
art.
+++
That seems to be all Rhizome is responsible to do.
As for the source of the problem…using someone's
work as an example for getting a commission and then
taking the money… Within Rhizome we seem to
understand that money is raised using the Rhizome
community content and that this money goes on to
operate the community system (like giving out grants
or posting this half-baked email) That's one thing. To
just take the money..Ick. Sad if true.
=====
http://mteww.com
http://tinjail.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
Hi Everyone:
This week has generated a lot of discussion about our commission award to
Nungu. We want to reassure everyone that we have looked into the situation
and do not believe that Nungu received the award under false pretenses. We
have also seen updates of the project, which is near completion.
We appreciate everyone's concern about the situation, and hope that Nungu's
many collaborators will be able to focus their energies on finishing the
project.
Best,
Mark
>>>Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 15:00:05 -0400
>>>From: "t.whid" <[email protected]>
>>>Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: NUNGU
>>>To: [email protected]
>>>X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.3 (Blindsider)
>>>Sender: [email protected]
>>>Reply-To: "t.whid" <[email protected]>
>>>
>>>i'll put in my two cents.
>>>
>>>this issue is the business of the rhizome community. it's our business
>>>because some of us support rhizome financially thus part of the grant is
>>>coming from us.
>>>
>>>if someone obtained a grant from rhizome through false pretenses then
>>>grant should be revoked. if checks have been cashed, a law suit should
>>>be filed (but i'm sure mtribe can get MUCH, MUCH better legal advice
>>>than mine ;-).
>>>
>>>there is no evidence i've read here that would support the accusation
>>>that Nunga received the grant through false pretenses and it doesn't
>>>seem that there ever WILL be any evidence. but i think mark tribe should
>>>look into it more closely and make a public statement as well.
>>>
>>>Nunga seems up-front about what it is and received the grant from that:
>>>it's a collaborative. if the accuser didn't understand what it means to
>>>be in a collaborative perhaps s/he shouldn't have participated with
>>>Nunga on the projects they've cited.
>>>
>>>unless there was a formal agreement btw nunga admin and the accuser
>>>(sorry forgot the person's name and i'm too lazy to look it up) stating
>>>that all projects are owned exclusively by Nunga, then the accuser has
>>>the same rights to the projects as Nunga has and Nunga should be
>>>ethically obligated to give them all the files involved in the disputed
>>>projects. they can then both go their own ways branching the project out
>>>on 2 different trajectories. the original project would still be
>>>attributed to Nunga imo.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > — Pet Name <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> > >Any other options or facts to be placed on the table?
>>> >
>>> > This sounds like a internal conflict. Sounds like
>>> > someone is getting screwed. This being said…the
>>> > Rhizome community can talk about it but is not going
>>> > to fix Nungu's problem. What can be done is to go back
>>> > to whomever the contact person is at Nunga and ask
>>> > them to clarify / update the bio on the Rhizome site.
>>> > It reads now as:
>>> >
>>> > +++
>>> > TELEMATIC SURVEILLANCE
>>> > by Nungu (Bombay & London/Maharashtra/India & UK)
>>> >
>>> > The project proposes an exploration of forms of
>>> > 'hypercontrol' present in societies infused with
>>> > communication and information technology
>>> > networkstelematic surveillance.
>>> >
>>> > Currently based in Bombay India, Nungu is a fluid
>>> > collective of national and international media artists
>>> > working together towards the creation of networked
>>> > art.
>>> > +++
>>> >
>>> > That seems to be all Rhizome is responsible to do.
>>> >
>>> > As for the source of the problem…using someone's
>>> > work as an example for getting a commission and then
>>> > taking the money… Within Rhizome we seem to
>>> > understand that money is raised using the Rhizome
>>> > community content and that this money goes on to
>>> > operate the community system (like giving out grants
>>> > or posting this half-baked email) That's one thing. To
>>> > just take the money..Ick. Sad if true.
Greetings:
Several people have written to suggest that we look into the Nungu matter
more carefully. I will do so immediately, and will report back as soon as
possible.
Sincerely,
Mark
Hi :
I would like to say the following on this ongoing
nungu.com issue:
1) I have been working at nungu.com since then i have worked with the following
Bea Gison
Vishwas Kulkarni
Vivek Sasikumar
Shefali Chad
Vishal Rawlley (though i havent had the chance to meet him)
Vivek, Shefali and Bea have worked on jeevan,jham and masala_x along with vishal and since vishal left the rest have continued working and i am helping with the Telematic Surveillance project.
also from this list most of the people still work at nungu.com
2) We are working together to implement the Telematic Surveillance project under the leadership of Bea
3) Her understanding and the briefing of what she wanted along with her clear instructions on what was needed to be done stems more from someone who understands the project concept in her head and not from someone
who merely implements. Changes have been conducted in an instant which i do not think implementation personnel have the power or ability to do so.
Also her explanations of the Security camera project and enthusiasm for it reveal a genuine interest and not just a casual implementation interest. all further
inputs about the work to be done are from her only and Mr Rawlley has never worked with us on this (Surveillance).
4) Ms Gibson genuinely was regretful about the fact that Mr Rawlleys name was not mentioned and when he brought it up his name was instantly put up.
5) The costs involved for Ms Gibsons project has been extensive including
but not limited to :
2 Cameras
1 Graphic designer
2 Technology implementation experts
Cable modems
Electricity connections
Internet access charges ( for 1 year ) for 2 seperate locations
I will attest to these charges as i have seen all this being done
Rahul
Greetings Rhizomers:
I am writing to follow up on the controversy surrounding one of our
commissioned projects, Telematic Surveillance by Nungu. In Nungu's proposal
site <http://www.nungu.com/[update[02]>, which was submitted by Beatrice
(Bea) Gibson, Nungu is described as a "fluid collective." The proposal
included a description of Nungu as a group, as well as Bea's personal
resume, but it did not list her other collaborators or describe their
involvement.
In early August, Bea notified us of her failure to credit her collaborators
and updated the proposal site with those names. She also informed us that a
former collaborator, Vishal Rawlley, would likely contact us soon in an
attempt to discredit her. On August 19, Vishal did contact us. His email
began: "This is to bring to your notice that Miss Beatrice Gibson of
nungu.com in her grant application to Rhizome has faked facts with the
willful intent to cheat the grant authorities and has thus been awarded the
grant on a false basis." Vishal then went on to explain how he felt
exploited by Bea's actions.
In the days that followed, we received several emails in support of Bea and
several others in support of Vishal. Meanwhile, a discussion of the matter
ensued on the Rhizome.org web site and on the Rhizome Raw email list (the
Fresh Texts page and the Raw list now mirror each other). There were calls
for me to make a public statement and I posted a message saying that I had
looked into the matter and did not believe that Nungu had received the
commission under false pretenses. This statement was premature; I should
have investigated more thoroughly before drawing conclusions.
After sending that message, several people posted to the list, arguing that
we had not looked into the matter sufficiently and were not taking it
seriously. I then posted to the list to say that I would look into the
matter more carefully and report back, and began a more thorough
investigation. I contacted Vishal, Bea, every current or former Nungu
collaborator or contributor of whom I am aware, members of Serai (a new
media initiative based in Delhi that has worked with Nungu),
representatives of fictive.net and the Daniel Langlois Foundation (both
have commissioned or are currently commissioning Nungu projects), and the
commission jurors.
I have now heard back from almost every current or former Nungu
collaborator and from the other parties mentioned above. It has been
difficult to gain a clear picture of the situation from this distance (I am
in New York, Bea is in London, Vishal and most of the other collaborators
are in India). I received many conflicting reports. Although the current
Nungu collaborators, and some of the former ones, are supportive of Bea and
of Nungu, many of the former collaborators are not. Specifically, some
former collaborators feel that Bea has exploited or misappropriated their
work to gain credibility for herself and win commissions and grants.
This is of great concern to me and to Rhizome.org. We take these
accusations very seriously. It is, to say the least, a very complicated and
difficult situation. Although we in no way condone Bea's initial failure to
credit her collaborators, it is not our place to evaluate her
intentions. Commissions are awarded for future projects, not past work.
Proposals are evaluated on the merits of the proposed project. Work samples
are used primarily to evaluate the artist or group's ability to
successfully complete the proposed project. We do not believe that the
commission jury woud have acted differently had Bea adequately credited her
collaborators in the initial proposal. Bea has now updated the Nungu resume
and has admitted her mistake. Having concluded my investigation, I do not
feel it would be appropriate for Rhizome.org to take any further action or
to involve ourselves further in any ongoing dispute between current and
former Nungu members.
Although supporting collaborations can be problematic–groups can break up
or get enmeshed in controversy–we remain committed to supporting the work
of collaborative groups through our commissioning program. In the future,
we will go to greater lengths to ensure that all members of collaborative
groups that we support are credited fairly and that commissioned projects
are not the subject of ongoing disputes.
The commissioned projects will launch on the Rhizome.org web site on
September 30, and will be exhibited at the New Museum of Contemporary Art
in New York from October 1 through November 3. We invite all current and
former Nungu collaborators to participate actively in the Rhizome.org
community and to send in proposals for the next round of Rhizome commissions.
Sincerely Yours,
Mark Tribe
I'm sorry to open this up again after this letter but I'm still a little uncertain about all this.
I'm happy for an off-list response if it's felt inappropriate to get into this on raw again…
My main concern is that in this letter mark states that:
I received many conflicting reports. Although the current
> Nungu collaborators, and some of the former ones, are supportive of Bea and
> of Nungu, many of the former collaborators are not. Specifically, some
> former collaborators feel that Bea has exploited or misappropriated their
> work to gain credibility for herself and win commissions and grants.
and that
> This is of great concern to me and to Rhizome.org. We take these
> accusations very seriously. It is, to say the least, a very complicated and
> difficult situation. Although we in no way condone Bea's initial failure to
> credit her collaborators, it is not our place to evaluate her
> intentions. Commissions are awarded for future projects, not past work
but my confusion is that i had thought that (as well as the the accusations of
misappropriation of work) the Telematic Surveillance project was based on
expanding/repositioning of the ideas and thematics of a past project(s) (the 'ownership'
of which is under question). How then can it be concluded that past projects bear no
relevance to the awarding of the grant? If the collaborators of this past project are no
longer involved in the future project then it makes sense that the current collaborators
would be happy but the previous ones not. I may have got this wrong as the mass of
conflicting posts made it difficult to follow and if so, please feel free to put me right:-)!
I find it difficult to agree that the fact the artists have now been credited for the 'source'
of the project makes things ok. It does look like ideas and work can been used as the
basis to secure funding for new work in which the original artists will play no part and
without their permission (or even, views) sought. This seems to me as a dangerous
precedent to set on collaborative projects. It must seem a bitter pill that a 'good idea' can
no longer be built and expanded upon (or any funding gained to do this) by its
originators because it has already 'been done'. It is hard to believe that these former
Nungu collaborators will be willing to accept a credit and an invitation to apply to future
rhizome commissions as (for want a better word) fair.
When and where will the line be drawn? My feeling is that to warrant a grant
(particularly with the respected name of rhizome attached) work must be the artists' own
or if based upon a previous collaboration, all collaborators in that previous project must
be happy for the work to be expanded/re-presented/continued. If this is not the case
here, I have to say that I am still deeply unhappy that rhizome continues to support the
new project.
jess loseby
(UK)
> Greetings Rhizomers:
>
> I am writing to follow up on the controversy surrounding one of our
> commissioned projects, Telematic Surveillance by Nungu. o
/^ rssgallery.com
][
Hi Jess:
I'm reluctant to respond because to be honest I've already invested a huge
amount of time in this matter and really need to move on. And I'm concerned
that I won't have time to participate further in what I hope will be a
productive debate. But the issues you raise are important, so here goes:
At 09:43 PM 9/10/2002 +0100, Jess Loseby wrote:
>I'm sorry to open this up again after this letter but I'm still a little
>uncertain about all this.
>I'm happy for an off-list response if it's felt inappropriate to get into
>this on raw again…
>
>My main concern is that in this letter mark states that:
> I received many conflicting reports. Although the current
> > Nungu collaborators, and some of the former ones, are supportive of Bea
> and
> > of Nungu, many of the former collaborators are not. Specifically, some
> > former collaborators feel that Bea has exploited or misappropriated their
> > work to gain credibility for herself and win commissions and grants.
>and that
> > This is of great concern to me and to Rhizome.org. We take these
> > accusations very seriously. It is, to say the least, a very complicated
> and
> > difficult situation. Although we in no way condone Bea's initial
> failure to
> > credit her collaborators, it is not our place to evaluate her
> > intentions. Commissions are awarded for future projects, not past work
>
>but my confusion is that i had thought that (as well as the the
>accusations of
>misappropriation of work) the Telematic Surveillance project was based on
>expanding/repositioning of the ideas and thematics of a past project(s)
>(the 'ownership'
>of which is under question).
Right, Telematic Surveillance was initially proposed as both an extension
of a previous project called Mrs. Jeevam Jham and as a separate project.
Vishal claims that he is the sole author of Mrs. Jeevam Jham. Bea claims
that he and Vishal were collaborators and that they conceptualized it
together. There is no clear consensus among the others with whom I have
communicated. I have seen Telematic Surveillance in its near-complete
state. Like Mrs. Jeevam Jham, it deals with issues of surveillance. But it
is clearly a separate project.
>How then can it be concluded that past projects bear no
>relevance to the awarding of the grant?
I just want to point out that it's a commission, not a grant. There's a
significant difference. We're commissioning new work, not awarding a grant
for past work. Yes, the old work is relevant. For the jury, the primary
relevance of the old work is to evaluate the artist or group's ability to
complete the proposed project and to give a sense of what the new work may
be like.
>If the collaborators of this past project are no
>longer involved in the future project then it makes sense that the current
>collaborators
>would be happy but the previous ones not. I may have got this wrong as the
>mass of
>conflicting posts made it difficult to follow and if so, please feel free
>to put me right:-)!
You've got it right so far.
>I find it difficult to agree that the fact the artists have now been
>credited for the 'source'
>of the project makes things ok. It does look like ideas and work can been
>used as the
>basis to secure funding for new work in which the original artists will
>play no part and
>without their permission (or even, views) sought. This seems to me as a
>dangerous
>precedent to set on collaborative projects. It must seem a bitter pill
>that a 'good idea' can
>no longer be built and expanded upon (or any funding gained to do this) by
>its
>originators because it has already 'been done'.
Now I disagree. There's no reason that Vishal Rawlley can't also do
projects that stem from his work with Nungu and seek funding for them. When
a collaboration breaks up, former collaborators should be free to do new
projects that are conceptually rooted in old ones. At the heart of the
matter are issues of intellectual property. Although many in the Rhizome
community believe that intellectual property is an oxymoron, that all
information and content should be free, even US copyright law recognizes
that ideas themselves are free. You can copyright an image or specific
language, but you can't copyright a concept. So the question is not
whether Telematic Surveillance deals with ideas that Mrs. Jeevam Jham also
deals with, but whether the new project contains copyrightable content from
the old project. And it doesn't. Even if it did, it wouldn't be Rhizome's
responsibility to resolve an intellectual property dispute between former
collaborators.
>It is hard to believe that these former
>Nungu collaborators will be willing to accept a credit and an invitation
>to apply to future
>rhizome commissions as (for want a better word) fair.
Most of them seem eager to put this behind them and move on.
>When and where will the line be drawn? My feeling is that to warrant a grant
>(particularly with the respected name of rhizome attached) work must be
>the artists' own
>or if based upon a previous collaboration, all collaborators in that
>previous project must
>be happy for the work to be expanded/re-presented/continued. If this is
>not the case
>here, I have to say that I am still deeply unhappy that rhizome continues
>to support the
>new project.
If, after contacting the former collaborators and others, I had discovered
that Bea had in fact intentionally misled us, that the former collaborators
were unanimous in feeling exploited, then maybe we would have grounds to
take further action. But in this case there is no solid evidence that we
were intentionally misled, there is no unanimity among former
collaborators. There is no clear picture of who's right and who's wrong.
It's a very complicated and problematic dispute. It would be unwise for us
to take sides.
Yours,
Mark
hi j,m, &all,
i'd like to add a few remarks.
jess wrote:
> >I find it difficult to agree that the fact the artists have now been
> >credited for the 'source'
> >of the project makes things ok. It does look like ideas and work can been
> >used as the
> >basis to secure funding for new work in which the original artists will
> >play no part and
> >without their permission (or even, views) sought. This seems to me as a
> >dangerous
> >precedent to set on collaborative projects.
it is the only precedent to set, bitter or not. a collaborative has to
be, and indeed is, an entity that exists independently of any individual
member. the individual members, often in flux, combine to form the
unified public entity of the collective. any other entity, such as
rhizome, interacts soley with the collective public entity, and has to
assume, and expect, that conflicts within the collaborative entity are
resolved within that entity. its the only way to operate. if it becomes
publically known that a collaborative entity is rife with internal
problems, fear not, organizations will avoid dealing with that entity.
which is why it is ESSENTIAL that public collaborative entities resolve
their conflicts in private. once it spills into the public realm,
everybody loses.
mark wrote:
>…So the question is not
> whether Telematic Surveillance deals with ideas that Mrs. Jeevam Jham also
> deals with, but whether the new project contains copyrightable content from
> the old project. And it doesn't. Even if it did, it wouldn't be Rhizome's
> responsibility to resolve an intellectual property dispute between former
> collaborators.
indeed it is not rhizome's responsibility, it is the responsibility of
the collaborative entity to properly disperse funds and credits among
themselves. if Nike hires RGA to produce a website for their new shoe,
it is not Nike's responsibility to insure that RGA employees get their
paychecks.
jess wrote:
> >It is hard to believe that these former
> >Nungu collaborators will be willing to accept a credit and an invitation
> >to apply to future
> >rhizome commissions as (for want a better word) fair.
in all honesty, what else can they expect, or demand? that the nungu
commission be retracted, the money returned to rhizome? not fair to the
current members of the collective.
jess wrote:
> >When and where will the line be drawn? My feeling is that to warrant a grant
> >(particularly with the respected name of rhizome attached) work must be
> >the artists' own
> >or if based upon a previous collaboration, all collaborators in that
> >previous project must
> >be happy for the work to be expanded/re-presented/continued. If this is
> >not the case
> >here, I have to say that I am still deeply unhappy that rhizome continues
> >to support the
> >new project.
what you suggest here is far more problematic than the situation we are
presently faced with. it is simply unreasonable to expect that all
members of a collective will all agree on the future life of a work they
created together. imagine a situation where two members of a collective
are romantically involved, have a falling out, and one party
subsequently refuses to allow the other to expand upon an existing
project, to even include it in their resume, just out of spite. is it
then up to rhizome to moderate their "divorce?" certainly not. lets take
another example: suppose there is rock band, of four members. they make
it big, one member decides she's had enough, quits the band. she can now
say that the band can't continue without her agreeing to their actions?
hardly. she probably maintains rights to the previously recorded songs,
but certainly can't have any say in what the band continues to produce,
even if it is the worst bubblegum kiddie-pop, and even though the band
is leveraging their success on the initial fame she helped to create.
i think at this point, enough damage has been done to both parties
reputations that i think in a strange way, justice has been served. i
think bea has to be far more considerate to her collaborators as she
advances her personal goals (take a cue from Yael K, she seems to handle
collaboration with the utmost grace) and i think vishal needs to be a
bit more realistic in his expectations of the sovreignty of
collaborative ventures, or just get it all in writing ahead of time. i
may have missed something along the way, but does vishal at any point
demand a portion of the commission funds? i hope not, as mark makes
quite clear, the commission is for new work, and the results of this
commission are all together a different project from the original.
best,
j
ps. i hope we all can live and learn from this embroilment.
John Klima wrote:
> it is the only precedent to set, bitter or not. a collaborative has to
> be, and indeed is, an entity that exists independently of any
individual
> member. the individual members, often in flux, combine to form the
> unified public entity of the collective. any other entity, such as
> rhizome, interacts soley with the collective public entity, and has to
> assume, and expect, that conflicts within the collaborative entity are
> resolved within that entity.
The lesson from this is clear: When you enter into a collective, you
need to sign (or shake hands over) an "Operating Agreement" that details
what happens when a member enters or leaves the collective, and what
happens when the collective is entirely disbanded. Two common
understandings/clauses would have helped this whole situation: (1) That
decisions to enter into new business opportunities be made unanimously
by current members and (2) when the group disbands beyond a certain
point (like 50%) the group itself shall cease to exist (that is, no
individuals or subsets of the group can ever again claim to be the
group).
Such an agreement would have saved us from having to know that that the
Monkees are currently on tour (http://www.monkees2001.com). I mean,
without Peter and Mike they're not really the Monkees at all, are they?
-Cf
[christopher eli fahey]
art: http://www.graphpaper.com
sci: http://www.askrom.com
biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com
i might as well put my $.02 in too. i think that rhizome is doing the
proper thing as well. and i feel that i have some views on this
coming from my long-term collaboration with M.River. (going on 6
years)
>hi j,m, &all,
>
>i'd like to add a few remarks.
>
>
>jess wrote:
>> >I find it difficult to agree that the fact the artists have now been
>> >credited for the 'source'
>> >of the project makes things ok. It does look like ideas and work can been
>> >used as the
>> >basis to secure funding for new work in which the original artists will
>> >play no part and
>> >without their permission (or even, views) sought. This seems to me as a
>> >dangerous
>> >precedent to set on collaborative projects.
>
>it is the only precedent to set, bitter or not. a collaborative has to
>be, and indeed is, an entity that exists independently of any individual
>member. the individual members, often in flux, combine to form the
>unified public entity of the collective. any other entity, such as
>rhizome, interacts soley with the collective public entity, and has to
>assume, and expect, that conflicts within the collaborative entity are
>resolved within that entity. its the only way to operate.
[very good point following]
if it becomes
>publically known that a collaborative entity is rife with internal
>problems, fear not, organizations will avoid dealing with that entity.
>which is why it is ESSENTIAL that public collaborative entities resolve
>their conflicts in private. once it spills into the public realm,
>everybody loses.
i agree absolutely with John and Rhizome on this. if i wished to
pursue a commission on my own, outside of MTAA, i may only have MTAA
work to show as examples of previous work as it's all i've done in
the past few years. It would be none of M.River's business which
projects i used as examples. these projects would be credited as part
of MTAA of which i'm a member.
Things get stickier if m.river & i part ways yet i continue to use
the MTAA label for my own work. ethically that would be an appalling
thing for me to do, very sleazy indeed. There may be public arguments
where i assert M.River didn't mind that i use the name and he asserts
otherwise. What would a funding entity do at that point? no one knows
what the *real* agreement was, only M.River and i. They've looked at
the past work, looked at the present proposal and made their
decision. They quietly tell me that perhaps i should behave
differently in the future, perhaps change the authorship of the
present commission to T.Whid instead of MTAA, and put a red flag on
my file for the future.
>
>mark wrote:
>
>>…So the question is not
>> whether Telematic Surveillance deals with ideas that Mrs. Jeevam Jham also
>> deals with, but whether the new project contains copyrightable content from
>> the old project. And it doesn't. Even if it did, it wouldn't be Rhizome's
>> responsibility to resolve an intellectual property dispute between former
>> collaborators.
>
>indeed it is not rhizome's responsibility, it is the responsibility of
>the collaborative entity to properly disperse funds and credits among
>themselves. if Nike hires RGA to produce a website for their new shoe,
>it is not Nike's responsibility to insure that RGA employees get their
>paychecks.
>
>jess wrote:
>> >It is hard to believe that these former
>> >Nungu collaborators will be willing to accept a credit and an invitation
>> >to apply to future
>> >rhizome commissions as (for want a better word) fair.
>
>in all honesty, what else can they expect, or demand? that the nungu
>commission be retracted, the money returned to rhizome? not fair to the
>current members of the collective.
>
>
>jess wrote:
>> >When and where will the line be drawn? My feeling is that to
>>warrant a grant
>> >(particularly with the respected name of rhizome attached) work must be
>> >the artists' own
>> >or if based upon a previous collaboration, all collaborators in that
>> >previous project must
>> >be happy for the work to be expanded/re-presented/continued. If this is
>> >not the case
>> >here, I have to say that I am still deeply unhappy that rhizome continues
>> >to support the
>> >new project.
>
>what you suggest here is far more problematic than the situation we are
>presently faced with. it is simply unreasonable to expect that all
>members of a collective will all agree on the future life of a work they
>created together. imagine a situation where two members of a collective
>are romantically involved, have a falling out, and one party
>subsequently refuses to allow the other to expand upon an existing
>project, to even include it in their resume, just out of spite. is it
>then up to rhizome to moderate their "divorce?" certainly not. lets take
>another example: suppose there is rock band, of four members. they make
>it big, one member decides she's had enough, quits the band. she can now
>say that the band can't continue without her agreeing to their actions?
>hardly. she probably maintains rights to the previously recorded songs,
>but certainly can't have any say in what the band continues to produce,
>even if it is the worst bubblegum kiddie-pop, and even though the band
>is leveraging their success on the initial fame she helped to create.
>
agreed on this point as well. if MTAA breaks up, i would assume that
M.River would keep all our projects on his resume and so would i. if
he wanted to create a version 2 of an MTAA project he wouldn't need
my approval and vice versa.
it's my strong suspicion that rhizome's only recourse would be to
distance themselves from a project that received a commission thru
outright deception. rhizome doesn't have the personnel or the budget
to start a legal proceeding to retrieve commission funds. it's far
from clear from what i've read on this list that nungu was actively
trying to deceive rhizome, seems more like inexperience and poor
judgement.
my $.02.
–
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>
On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Christopher Fahey [askrom] wrote:
> > it is the only precedent to set, bitter or not. a collaborative has to
> > be, and indeed is, an entity that exists independently of any individual
> > member.
Exaktly comme une armie, ne?
Consider:
The origin of the word robot is derived from a drama RUR (1920) by a
Czech drama writer Karel Capek. A character in the drama produces a
number of artificial men, and they replace humans in the workplace.
It was the first time that a word Robot was used to express this
artificial man. The word Robot originally came from a word robots
meaning forced labour in the Czech language. The robot appearing in
this drama is not a mechanical man, but an organic composite man.
Suppress essence-individuality. Force identification with
lower–slave impulses. Package it as collaboration, and if
you're particularly clever–pass it on as revolution.
Insert freedom slogans.
> > the individual members, often in flux, combine to form the
> > unified public entity of the collective.
Combine? I suppose collaboration of sovereign individuals
(consciousness) is a totally foreign concept.
> The lesson from this is clear: When you enter into a collective, you
> need to sign (or shake hands over) an "Operating Agreement" that details
> what happens when a member enters or leaves the collective, and what
> happens when the collective is entirely disbanded.
Aw, yeah. Why cultivate consciousness. Cultivate inappropriate
rules and regulations.
> Two common understandings/clauses would have helped this whole
> situation:
> (1) That decisions to enter into new business opportunities be made
> unanimously by current members
Voting++. Made unanimously by the.. one person who 'sold' the
idea of 'surrendering' essense-individuality to others, but didn't
follow his own advice.
> (2) when the group disbands beyond a certain point (like 50%) the group
> itself shall cease to exist (that is, no individuals or subsets of the
> group can ever again claim to be the group).
All contributionz are equal.
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42