Around the grounds, Spring is sprung.
someone looks at something...
We are what we think.
All that we are arises with our thoughts.
With our thoughts we make the world.
BuddhaPurple gaze, all around
LOGOS/HA HAHelp me
|We have received the following email announcement from the Museum of Contemporary Art, Sydney :|
Question the post-critical irony
How do we distinguish between an ‘original’ and a ‘copy’?
Professor of Art History at Monash University, Rex Butler
takes a look at the practice of two painters making similar
work for two very different reasons. Explore the theories
|Clicking on that takes us to this :|
Dora Maar (November 22, 1907 – July 16, 1997), born Henriette Theodora Marković, was an Argentinian-raised photographer of French and Croatian descent, with further known artistic work in poetry, and painting; she is most widely known as Pablo Picasso's muse of nearly a decade (c.1935-44), including for his widely known pieces Guernica and The Weeping Woman.
“This is a man who has no politics, who is entirely free of politics, but has given a lifetime of service.”
Dyson Heydon: royal commissioner decides futureRoyal Commissioner Dyson Heydon's father was the private secretary to Robert Menzies when he first was Prime Minister, from 1939-40.
The Australian / Elizabeth Colman, Jared Owens
31 August 2015
What you didn’t know about Dyson Heydon
Malcolm Farr / news.com.au
The test for determining whether a judge should disqualify himself or herself by reason of apprehended bias is “whether a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the judge might not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the resolution of the question the judge is required to decide”
Johnson v Johnson(2000) 201 CLR 488 at , affirmed in Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337; applied inMichael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Nicholls (2011) 244 CLR 427; distinguished in British American Tobacco Australia Services Ltd v Laurie (2011) 242 CLR 283; see also Slavin v Owners Corporation Strata Plan 16857 NSWCA 71 and Barakat v Goritsas (No 2)  NSWCA 36.
May I emphasise at this point what I call the double "might" test in Ebner. We would respectfully suggest that the use of the two "mights", not only is it rather ugly grammar, it does emphasise that this is actually quite a low bar that is imposed by the High Court in relation to the test, because I don't have to persuade you that the hypothetical observer would think that you harbour a political prejudice. I only have to persuade you that the hypothetical observer, firstly, might think and, secondly, what he might think is that you might harbour a political prejudice. I think that is an important point to emphasise. The test could be cast with the use of many other words but it has obviously deliberately been cast in that sense which creates a low threshold. That is our first submission. We put it forward as a basis by itself that would justify the making of the orders we seek.