Re: charges against Bea proved
> To all those who have been participating in this discussion:
Thanks for your comments.
Some things that make the whole issue very clear:
Firstly, I have charged Bea with illegitimately re-appropriating my project (Mrs. Jeevan Jham) as her own (without crediting me at all) and then proposing to build on it. She never informed me and was never granted my permission for this.
Her response to this (in an e-mail sent to me) is that it was a collaborative project co-authored by both of us. She has accepted that it was a mistake on her part not to credit me for it and has apologized for this.
I have asserted earlier that even if Bea is to be believed, she has no right to individually start building on something which she singularly doesn't own. She never informed me about this or asked my permission. Hence by Bea's own admission she is guilty (or partially guilty) on the first count. Her apology comes too late and is useless as it still does not give me back the right to continue to develop a project which I initiated.
Secondly, I have claimed that the ‘nungu collective’ did not exist when Bea applied for the grant as a collective and the grant will solely benefit her.
The direct proof of this lies in the nungu resume listed on the Rhizome website itself. It explicitly names Bea and me as the only members of nungu.
JUST CHECKED: THE NUNGU RESUME ON RHIZOME HAS BEEN CHANGED BY BEA. NOW IT ONLY LISTS HER AS THE NUNGU MEMBER AND NOT ME AND HER AS IT DID PREVIOUSLY. CAN RHIZOME DIG OUT THE DATE OF THIS UPDATE? THAT WOULD EXPOSE THE ATTEMPT AT COVER UP. I HAVE A COPY OF THE PREVIOUS RESUME POSTED ON RHIZOME - WHICH I SAVED WHEN I DISCOVERED THIS ISSUE. I SHALL SEND IT AS PROOF IN MY NEXT MAIL.
Or, simply ask Bea when she updated this resume. I am hoping that she will not lie.
Also she might be asked to submit the previous nungu resume and that will clearly show that it mentions me and her alone.
This partnership broke down in February this year and the ‘collective nature’ of nungu came to an end. The resume attached to the grant proposal does not mention any new collaborators. In fact it tries to imply that Bea = nungu. Bea’s CV and nungu’s CV are written concurrently: Bea’s date of birth followed by nungu’s d.o.b., her address followed by nungu’s IP address etc. Bea also states that nungu is her digital manifestation! Then how is nungu a collective???
Also, the grant proposal clearly states in the budget section that the grant amount will (besides for equipment) pay for only one artist i.e. B. Gibson and one unnamed programmer. Hence there is no doubt that it is she alone and not any collective which will benefit from the grant.
Thirdly, I had accused Bea of claiming undue credit in her resume for work not done by her.
Bea has accepted (in an e-mail sent to me) that the omission of individual names is a mistake on her part and that this could make it seem that she is primarily responsible for all the projects. She has since sent me an updated credit list with all contributors duly mentioned which put things into perspective. However, again the remedial measure comes too late. Further, Bea has credited herself as a ‘collaborating artist’ on several projects, which is a lie.
All contributors mentioned in the credit list (including me) have impressive resumes (I don’t mean to be immodest), which go back to at least five to six years; they have done at least one or two award winning projects, have won important scholarships and grants and have worked on several commissioned projects in the past.
Bea has never ever individually executed a single work of art in her entire life and can at the most (illegitimately – according to me) claim to be a collaborator on only two art projects: Masala_x and Mrs. Jeevan Jham done in the last year.
She is asked to submit her personal resume and academic qualifications prior to winning the grant – without frills and fancy writing. That would make the facts very obvious to all.
I hope I have made things very clear and provided enough facts to support my claims. The onus is on Bea to either own up to her mistakes publicly (she has done so privately to me – which is of no consequence) or to refute the charges by proving the facts presented by me as false.
The important issue here is my right to continue work on a project initiated by me – which has been illegitimately snatched away. The grant amount does not interest me in the least. If I have to, I will apply for a grant at my own sweet time. I am currently engaged in executing a commissioned project which is more important to me presently, but I do not intend to gift away Mrs. Jeevan Jham to Bea as a gracious gesture from a generous Indian to this British visitor.
Thank you for hearing me out.