​​​In my introduction – The past determines the future – I set out the steps taken to reach the realisation that Robert Slingsby is an artist caught in crossfire and a target on his back. In Part I From the Vrije (Art) Academie to the Richtersveld Rock Art the Vrije (Art) Academie to the Richtersveld Rock Art, I give crucial background and context for this essay Decoding the evidence, 'cut bono, who benefits?  It's crucial that you do first read Part I - linked here. 

 

This essay serves as a stand-alone example of Slingsby's encounter with what Graham Hancock dubbed in Supernatural (Pg 213) an "academic mugging". The section heading "How not to be the victim of an academic mugging"  the "academic mugging" South African archaeologist, Professor Lewis-Williams received when publishing his revolutionary theory on the association between rock art and shamanism.

 

In Slingsby's case, the "academic mugging"took the form of an essay published in an academic publication. Cloaked in the guise of scholarly analysis, the author used Slingsby as an example of a contemporary artist referencing rock art, weaponised to dismiss Slingsby’s work and elevate the editor’s agenda. For the past (almost) three decades, we've assumed the "academic mugging" to be an unhinged, personal attack. The fallout has had catastrophic consequences to Slingsby's credibility and career in relation to his decades of research into the Richtersveld rock art (in particular) and traditional African art and artists, both contemporary and ancient, as well as contemporary  autochthonous African communities - clearly placing a target on his back. However, three months of research into the destruction of the Richtersveld rock art sites, resulted in evidence supporting a more sinister explanation.

​

Given that Slingsby has never ceased his quest to record the enigmatic Richtersveld petroglyphs, as well as having a profound influence on his art, this essay serves as an opportunity to rebut the author's erroneous, derogatory statements.

 

I aim to demonstrate that the "academic mugging" against Slingsby, was neither random nor unintentional. I arrived at this conclusion when research into University of the Witwatersrand, Professor David Lewis-William's "academic mugging', revealed a common denominator, raising a red flag. I have only scratched the surface of identifying yet further individuals, who have experienced similar "academic muggings"with the same common denominator, never out front, clearly using others to do the dirty work. Perhaps, in finally finding the time to accumulate factual evidence and courage to 'come out' after years of career abuse, hopefully others similarly silenced, will too; a 'me too' for survivors of unjustified "academic muggings". 

 

In Robert’s case, his preoccupation with traditional art of Africa, both ancient and contemporary, in particular the Richtersveld petroglyphs, found he’d unwittingly wandered into a gangland-like, academic turf-war, seeking to seize ownership of their area of interest. His unique characteristics of being both a practising artist and having an interest in rock art, was in direct conflict and apparently posed a serious threat. Every single major exhibition Slingsby has held in South Africa, has sustained a similar "mugging". Without exception, the common denominator is hiding in plain sight, using hatchet men to do the dirty work. What provokes this ill-perceived threat and degree of rivalry? Is it territorial ownership? Is it a desperate pursuit of "self aggrandisement", power, glory, legacy and access to privilege? 

​

With mounting evidence at hand, the guiding principle of 'cui bone, who benefits', meant I was able to connect the dots. To be honest, nothing that we already knew emerged. What did emerge was a web, who were the culprits, who were the hatchet men, the relationship between superiors and subordinates, the role of hereditary privilege, the role of white privilege and ultimately, gatekeepers, outsiders, insiders and the reason for Robert as target. ​​​