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

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

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

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" <twhid@mteww.com>
>>>Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: NUNGU
>>>To: list@rhizome.org
>>>X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.3 (Blindsider)
>>>Sender: owner-list@rhizome.org
>>>Reply-To: "t.whid" <twhid@mteww.com>
>>>
>>>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 <muserna@muserna.org> 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://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/05/arts/design/05ARTS.html