Mark Tribe
Since 2004
Works in New York, New York United States of America

PORTFOLIO (1)
BIO
Mark Tribe is an artist whose work explores the intersection of media technology and politics. His photographs, installations, videos, and performances are exhibited widely, including recent solo projects at Momenta Art in New York, the San Diego Museum of Art, G-MK in Zagreb, and Los Angeles Contemporary Exhibitions. Tribe is the author of two books, The Port Huron Project: Reenactments of New Left Protest Speeches (Charta, 2010) and New Media Art (Taschen, 2006), and numerous articles. He is Chair of the MFA Fine Arts Department at School of Visual Arts in New York City. In 1996, Tribe founded Rhizome, an organization that supports the creation, presentation, preservation, and critique of emerging artistic practices that engage technology.
Discussions (109) Opportunities (17) Events (22) Jobs (0)
EVENT

Meet in a nice restaurant - Istanbul


Dates:
Fri Oct 18, 2002 00:00 - Thu Sep 12, 2002

meet in a nice restaurant is an event which consists of three dinners. goal is to connect people who are related to new media. so far event took place two times in milano, once in montpellier and once in roma. from 18th until 20th october it is moving to istanbul. if you are a new media artist, designer, programmer, manager, teacher, student, user or thinker and you wish to participate please send bellow information to nikola@tosic.com:

1) name?
2) position?
3) company?
4) email?
5) url?
6) contact phone?
7) city?
8) country?

location and prices of dinners and information about other activities will be announced later to ones who register. for more information email nikola.


DISCUSSION

Re: Nungu


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

DISCUSSION

Nungu


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

DISCUSSION

Nungu discussion


Greetings:

I appreciate Vishal's suggestion that we continue this discussion in a more
private forum. We are committed to open communication, but sometimes it
makes more sense to limit a conversation to a smaller group.

I am now in email and/or phone contact with many of the parties involved in
the Nungu matter. Although it is difficult to assess the situation from a
distance, I am doing my best to hear all sides of the story and to find a
fair solution.

Rather than set up a separate discussion board, I suggest we simply
continue to email each other, using the Cc: field as appropriate to keep
other concerned parties in the loop. That said, anyone who wants to post
further public comments or responses should certainly feel free to do so.

In a recent post, t.whid wrote: "did [vishal rawlley] attempt to contact
rhizome admin before going public on raw? did rhizome admin give him the
brush-off? personally, i doubt it, i can't see mark tribe or rachel greene
ignoring this sort of thing if it would have been sent to them personally
and confidentially."

Vishal did send emails to several people at Rhizome.org, including me, on
or around August 19. I was on vacation at the time, and was not able to
respond promptly. I regret that I did not contact Vishal myself until
yesterday.

Sincerely,

Mark

DISCUSSION

Nungu


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