Journal articles on the topic 'MacKillop'

On 17 October 2010 Mary MacKillop became the first Australian citizen to be officially canonized by the Roman Catholic Church. This event generated a similar outpouring of patriotic enthusiasm to that which greeted Mary’s beatification in 1995. The title of this paper is borrowed from a newspaper article of 1985 by the poet, publisher and self-described ‘implacable agnostic’, Max Harris, a fervent supporter of Mary’s canonization. Saints are the only relatives that you can choose, commented Bishop Ambrose of Milan in the fourth century, and taking this ancient aphorism rather more literally than St Ambrose intended, Dame Edna Everage has claimed descent from a branch of the MacKillop family tree. As Dame Edna’s creator, comedian and satirist Barry Humphries, is a shrewd observer of Australian culture, Mary MacKillop’s triumph as a saint for all Australians seems assured — but what does this reveal about the meaning of sainthood in contemporary Australian society? This paper will trace some important stages in devotion to saints in Australian history before returning to Mary Helen MacKillop, her status as a national icon, and the threads of change and continuity which can be discerned in her cult.

Purpose Mary Mackillop, the only Australian to have been declared a “saint” by the Roman Catholic Church, co-founded the Institute of the Sisters of St Joseph, a religious congregation established primarily to educate the poor. Prior to this, she taught at a Common School in Portland. While she was there, the headmaster was dismissed. The purpose of this paper is to examine the extent to which the narrative accounts of the dismissal, as provided in the biographies of Mary, are supported by the documentary evidence. Contemporary records of the Board of Education indicate that Mary played a more active role in the dismissal than that suggested by her biographers. Design/methodology/approach Documentary evidence, particularly the records of the Board of Education, has been used to challenge the biographical accounts of Mary Mackillop’s involvement in an incident that occurred while she was a teacher at the Portland Common School. Findings It appears that the biographers, by omitting to consider the evidence available in the records of the Board of Education, have down-played Mary Mackillop’s involvement in the events that led to the dismissal of the head teacher at Portland. Originality/value This paper uses documentary evidence to challenge the account of the Portand incident, as provided in the biographies of Mary Mackillop.

MacKillop Family Services was established in July 1997 as a refounding of seven well-established child, youth and family agencies in Melbourne and Geelong. The pressures for change came from the desires of the directors of these agencies and the leaders of their auspicing religious congregations to continue and to improve their services and, at the same time, from the demands of government tendering and funding polices. Several elements contributed to the success of the process of negotiating change: all parties were treated equally; the directors of the agencies were unwavering in their commitment to change; there was a shared sense of urgent social needs and of the opportunity to improve and stabilise responses to those needs; the traditions of each agency were accorded understanding and respect; time and money were made available for much discussion and careful planning; and, finally, a realistic time-frame for transition was provided.

This article builds on research work undertaken by MacKillop Family Services on the experience of care leavers to explore the importance of the relational aspects of human service work. Recent legislative changes have focused on the availability of services and supports to young people transitioning from care. The authors suggest that it is time to refocus attention on the relationships between young people leaving care and human service workers. Such a discussion opens up models of practice that encourage flexible and participatory approaches.

International evidence supports the effect of intensive family preservation and reunification services in preventing children’s placement in out-of-home care (OOHC). Evidence within Australia is scarce. This protocol paper describes a hybrid effectiveness-implementation evaluation of the Victorian Family Preservation and Reunification (FPR) Response implemented by MacKillop Family Services. Participants include families engaged in the program and staff involved in program delivery. A pre-post study design will be used to assess the effectiveness of the FPR in improving family outcomes from intake to closure, including: (i) parenting knowledge, skills, and capability; (ii) family safety and home environment; (iii) child development, adolescent behaviour, education attendance and attachment; (iv) connection to services; and (v) prevention of children from entering or re-entering OOHC. Interviews and focus groups will be conducted with staff to evaluate the program’s fidelity, reach, feasibility, acceptability, and enablers and barriers to implementation. Quantitative data will be analysed using descriptive statistics and a series of paired-samples t-tests and F tests to examine changes in outcomes over time; thematic analysis will be used for qualitative data. If the FPR can yield significant improvements in families’ outcomes, this would provide strong support for its scale-up across Australia, to better support vulnerable families.

768 Background: This single institution retrospective study evaluates the reason for delay in Time To Adjuvant Chemotherapy (TTAC) from curative resection surgery to start of adjuvant therapy in CRC. The reason for this study was to determine if type of surgery (laparoscopic versus open) increased TTAC of which evidence indicates poorer disease free survival and overall survival (Biagi J, Raphael M, Mackillop W, Kong W, King W, Booth C. Association between time to initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy and survival in colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA, 305(22):2335-42. doi: 10.1001/jama.2011.749.) Methods: CRC patients treated at St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto, Canada were included if diagnosed with stage II or III disease, underwent curative resection surgery between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2012, and either received systemic adjuvant chemotherapy or surveillance protocol. Results: Among 259 patients, 92 patients (35.7%) underwent curative laparoscopic resection and 166 open resection (64.3%). Intraoperative and/or postoperative complications were experienced in 73 patients. Complications were less prevalent among patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery versus open resection (11.9% vs. 36.8%; p<0.0001). Of these 73 complications, wound infection (39.7%), intraoperative procedural complication (14.3%), and postoperative gastrointestinal complications (6.4%) were most prevalent. After adjusting for complication and clustering within the operating surgeon, there were no statistical differences in TTAC between open (51.310 ± 1.7 days) and laparoscopic (49.2 ± 1.6 days) resection surgeries (p=0.1996). However, presence of a complication was associated with delay in TTAC (HR 0.501; 95% CI, 0.43-0.58; p<0.001). Conclusions: TTAC in CRC patients does not differ statically for each type of resection surgery. However, presence of a complication is associated with delays in TTAC and is over three-fold more prevalent in open than laparoscopic resections. Therefore, there is an increased risk of delay in TTAC for open resection surgeries than laparoscopic resections due to a higher prevalence of surgical complications.

48 Background: Radiotherapy (RT) utilization is the proportion of patients (Pts) with a new diagnosis of carcinoma that receives at least one course of RT during the duration of their illness (MacKillop et al). In Ontario, the benchmark for utilization is 42%, and the target rate for Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) is 48%. However in 2005/06 Ontario’s utilization rate was only 35%. This shortfall implies that a significant number of Pts in Ontario were not receiving the best possible treatment. Methods: CCO has developed Capital Investments Strategies to take into account a growing population, an increased incidence of cancer (2.7% per annum), and changing demographics. The most recent (2012) has developed a plan for a gradual improvement in utilization at a rate of 0.5% per annum. With support from the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC), the amount of RT Units (RTUs) available increased from 77 (2005/06) to 103 (2013/14). In addition, the MOHLTC supported training programs for provincial Medical Physicists and Radiation Therapists to ensure effective staffing for increased RTUs. Results: Due to investments in RTUs and training, the number of Pts treated in Ontario has risen over 38% from 26,448 in 2005/06 to 36,613 in 2012/13. As a result, provincial utilization rates have risen from 35.1% in 2004/05 to 38.8% in 2012/13, closer to provincial targets. Notable improvements have been seen in centres such as The Carlo Fidani Peel Regional Cancer Centre, where the total number of RT Pts treated increased from 623 (2005/06) to 2532 (2012/13). Similar improvements are seen in other Local Health Integration Networks where comparable investments have been made. These improvements have been attained at the same time as provincial RT wait times have significantly improved from 80.2% (Jan 2010) to 91.6% (Dec 2012) of Pts seen within targets, exceeding provincial targets of 87%. Conclusions: The increase in RT utilization rates provincially demonstrates the success of developing a comprehensive capital investment strategy and coupling it with increased investments in human resource planning. The increased utilization rate has outpaced the increasing cancer incidence and demonstrates the success of these strategies, providing better access to care for cancer Pts in Ontario.

Prospective Middle–Late Triassic and Early Jurassic petroleum systems are widespread in central Australia where they have only been sparsely explored. These systems are important targets in the Simpson/Eromanga basins (Poolowanna Trough and surrounds), but the petroleum systems also extend into the northern and eastern Cooper Basin.Regional deposition of Early–Middle Triassic red-beds, which provide regional seal to the Permian petroleum system, are variously named the Walkandi Formation in the Simpson Basin, and the Arrabury Formation in the northern and eastern Cooper Basin. A pervasive, transgressive lacustrine sequence (Middle–Late Triassic Peera Peera Formation) disconformably overlies the red-beds and can be correlated over a distance of 500 km from the Poolowanna Trough into western Queensland, thus providing the key to unravelling Triassic stratigraphic architecture in the region. The equivalent sequence in the northern Cooper Basin is the Tinchoo Formation. These correlations allow considerable simplification of Triassic stratigraphy in this region, and demonstrate the wide lateral extent of lacustrine source rocks that also provide regional seal. Sheet-like, fluvial-alluvial sands at the base of the Peera Peera/Tinchoo sequence are prime reservoir targets and have produced oil at James–1, with widespread hydrocarbon shows occurring elsewhere including Poolowanna–1, Colson–1, Walkandi–1, Potiron–1 and Mackillop–1.The Early Jurassic Poolowanna Formation disconformably overlies the Peera Peera Formation and can be subdivided into two transgressive, fluvial-lacustrine cycles, which formed on a regional scale in response to distal sea level oscillations. Early Jurassic stratigraphic architecture in the Poolowanna Trough is defined by a lacustrine shale capping the basal transgressive cycle (Cycle 1). This shale partitions the Early Jurassic aquifer in some areas and significant hydrocarbon shows and oil recoveries are largely restricted to sandstones below this seal. Structural closure into the depositional edge of Cycle 1 is an important oil play.The Poolowanna and Peera Peera formations, which have produced minor oil and gas/condensate on test respectively in Poolowanna–1, include lacustrine source rocks with distinct coal maceral compositions. Significantly, the oil-bearing Early Jurassic sequence in Cuttapirrie–1 in the Cooper Basin correlates directly with the Cycle–1 oil pool in Poolowanna–1. Basin modelling in the latter indicates hydrocarbon expulsion occurred in the late Cretaceous (90–100 Ma) with migration into a subtle Jurassic age closure. Robust Miocene structural reactivation breached the trap leaving only minor remnants of water-washed oil. Other large Miocene structures, bound by reverse faults and some reflecting major inversion, have failed to encounter commercial hydrocarbons. Future exploration should target subtle Triassic to Jurassic–Early Cretaceous age structural and combination stratigraphic traps largely free of younger fault dislocation.

Abstract Nematodes are among the most important agents affecting potato crops. Heavy infestations by Globodera rostochiensis and G. pallida can cause significant yield losses and limit the choice of potato cultivars that can be grown effectively (Oerke, 2006). Breeding of new potato cultivar resistant to G. rostochiensis and G. pallida is a long-term process. It is preceded by screening of potato breeding lines for resistance in repeated biotests, which seems to be the most effective and safest method of protection. Evaluation of nematode resistance is an important element of characterization of breeding lines and new cultivars. Resistance to Globodera spp. is evaluated in biological tests. The use of DNA markers for detecting nematode resistance genes may be an alternative approach to phenotypic evaluation of resistance degree of potato plants (Jena and Mackill, 2008). The goal of this report is focused on a description of resistance assessment procedure of breeding lines and varieties of potato to PCN and on comparison of biological and molecular methods of resistance evaluation. Presented information is addressed to both breeders and Polish inspection services.

Background: Following surgery for early stage breast cancer, adjuvant radiotherapy decreases the risk of locoregional recurrence and death from breast cancer. It is unclear if delays to the initiation of adjuvant radiotherapy are associated with inferior survival outcomes. Methods: This population-based, prospective cohort study included a random sample of 25% of all women with stage I and II breast cancer treated with adjuvant radiotherapy in Ontario, Canada between September 1, 2001 and August 31, 2002, when due to capacity issues, wait times for radiation were abnormally long. Pathology reports were manually abstracted and deterministically-linked to population-level administrative databases to obtain information on recurrence and survival outcomes. Cox proportional hazard modeling was used to evaluate the association between waiting time and survival outcomes. A composite survival outcome was used to ensure that all possible measurable harms of delay would be captured. The composite outcome, event-free survival, included locoregional recurrence, development of metastatic disease or breast cancer-specific mortality. Results: We identified 1,028 women with Stage I and II breast cancer who were treated with breast-conserving surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy. Among 599 women who were treated with adjuvant radiation without intervening chemotherapy, waiting time ≥12 weeks from surgery to start of radiation appears to be associated with worse event-free survival after a median follow-up of 7.2 years (HR, composite outcome = 1.44, 95% CI: 0.98-2.11; p= 0.07). Among 429 women who received intervening adjuvant chemotherapy, waiting time ≥6 weeks from completion of chemotherapy to start of radiation was associated with worse event-free survival after a median follow-up of 7.4 years (HR 1.50, 95% CI: 1.00-2.22; p= 0.047). Conclusion: Delay to the initiation of adjuvant radiotherapy following breast-conserving surgery is associated with inferior breast cancer survival outcomes. The good prognosis for patients with early stage breast cancer limits the statistical power to detect an effect of delay to radiotherapy. Given that there is no plausible advantage to delay, we agree with Mackillop et al, that time to initiation of radiotherapy should be kept “as short as reasonably achievable.”

Literary history can be viewed alternately in a perspective of continuities or discontinuities. In the former perspective, what I perversely call postmodernism is simply an extension of modernism [which is], as everyone knows, a development of symbolism, which … is itself a specialisation of romanticismand who is there to say that the romantic concept of man does not find its origin in the great European Enlightenment? Etc. In the latter perspective, however, continuities [which are] maintained on a certain level of narrative abstraction (i.e., history [or aesthetic description]) are resisted in the interests of the quiddity and discreteness of art, the space that each work or action creates around itself. – Ihab Hassan Ihab Hassan’s words, published in 1975, continue to resonate today. How should we approach art? Can an artwork ever really fully be described by its critical review, or does its description only lead to an ever multiplying succession of terms? Michel Foucault spoke of the construction of modern sexuality as being seen as the hidden, irresolvable “truth” of our subjectivity, as that secret which we must constantly speak about, and hence as an “incitement to discourse” (Foucault, History of Sexuality). Since the Romantic period, the appreciation of aesthetics has been tied to the subjectivity of the individual and to the degree an art work appeals to the individual’s sense of self: to one’s personal refinement, emotions and so on. Art might be considered part of the truth of our subjectivity which we seem to be endlessly talking about – without, however, actually ever resolving the issue of what a great art work really is (anymore than we have resolved the issue of what natural sexuality is). It is not my aim to explicate the relationship between art and sex but to re-inject a strategic understanding of discourse, as Foucault understood it, back into commonplace, contemporary aesthetic criticism. The problems in rendering into words subjective, emotional experiences and formal aesthetic criteria continue to dog criticism today. The chief hindrances to contemporary criticism remain such institutional factors as the economic function of newspapers. Given their primary function as tools for the selling of advertising space, newspapers are inherently unsuited to sustaining detailed, informed dialogue on any topic – be it international politics or aesthetics. As it is, reviews remain short, quickly written pieces squeezed into already overloaded arts pages. This does not prevent skilled, caring writers and their editorial supporters from ensuring that fine reviews are published. In the meantime, we muddle through as best we can. I argue that criticism, like art, should operate self-consciously as an incitement to discourse, to engagement, and so to further discussion, poetry, et cetera. The possibility of an endless recession of theoretical terms and subjective responses should not dissuade us. Rather, one should provisionally accept the instrumentality of aesthetic discourse provided one is able always to bear in mind the nominalism which is required to prevent the description of art from becoming an instrument of repression. This is to say, aesthetic criticism is clearly authored in order to demonstrate something: to argue a point, to make a fruitful comparison, and so on. This does not mean that criticism should be composed so as to dictate aesthetic taste to the reader. Instead, it should act as an invitation to further responses – much as the art work itself does. Foucault has described discourse – language, terminologies, metaphorical conceits and those logical and poetic structures which underpin them – as a form of technology (Foucault, Archaeology of Knowledge and History of Sexuality). Different discursive forces arise in response to different cultural needs and contexts, including, indeed, those formulated not only by artists, but also by reviewers. As Hassan intimates, what is or is not “postmodernism”, for example, depends less on the art work itself – it is less a matter of an art work’s specific “quiddity” and its internal qualities – but is, rather, fundamentally dependent upon what one is trying to say about the piece. If one is trying to describe something novel in a work, something which relates it to a series of new or unusual forms which have become dominant within society since World War Two, then the term “postmodernism” most usefully applies. This, then, would entail breaking down the “the space that each work … creates around itself” in order to emphasise horizontal “continuities”. If, on the other hand, the critic wishes to describe the work from the perspective of historical developments, so as to trace the common features of various art works across a genealogical pattern running from Romanticism to the present day, one must de-emphasise the quiddity of the work in favour of vertical continuities. In both cases, however, the identification of common themes across various art works so as to aid in the description of wider historical or aesthetic conditions requires a certain “abstraction” of the qualities of the aesthetic works in question. The “postmodernism”, or any other quality, of a single art work thus remains in the eye of the beholder. No art work is definitively “postmodern” as such. It is only “postmodern” inasmuch as this description aids one in understanding a certain aspect of the piece and its relationship to other objects of analysis. In short, the more either an art work or its critical review elides full descriptive explication, the more useful reflections which might be voiced in its wake. What then is the instrumental purpose of the arts review as a genre of writing? For liberal humanist critics such as Matthew Arnold, F.R. Leavis and Harold Bloom, the role of the critic is straight forward and authoritative. Great art is said to be imbued with the spirit of humanity; with the very essence of our common subjectivity itself. Critics in this mode seek the truth of art and once it has been found, they generally construct it as unified, cohesive and of great value to all of humanity. The authors of the various avant-garde manifestoes which arose in Europe from the fin de siècle period onwards significantly complicated this ideal of universal value by arguing that such aesthetic values were necessarily abstract and so were not immediately visible within the content of the work per se. Such values were rather often present in the art work’s form and expression. Surrealism, Futurism, Supremacism, the Bauhaus and the other movements were founded upon the contention that these avant-garde art works revealed fundamental truths about the essence of human subjectivity: the imperious power of the dream at the heart of our emotional and psychic life, the geometric principles of colour and shape which provide the language for all experience of the sublime, and so on. The critic was still obliged to identify greatness and to isolate and disseminate those pieces of art which revealed the hidden truth of our shared human experience. Few influential art movements did not, in fact, have a chief theoretician to promote their ideals to the world, be it Ezra Pound and Leavis as the explicators of the works of T.S. Eliot, Martin Esslin for Beckett, or the artist her or himself, such as choreographers Martha Graham or Merce Cunningham, both of whom described in considerable detail their own methodologies to various scribes. The great challenge presented in the writings of Foucault, Derrida, Hassan and others, however, is to abandon such a sense of universal aesthetic and philosophical value. Like their fellow travellers within the New Left and soixante huit-ièmes (the agitators and cultural critics of 1968 Paris), these critics contend that the idea of a universal human subjectivity is problematic at best, if not a discursive fiction, which has been used to justify repression, colonialism, the unequal institutional hierarchies of bourgeois democratic systems, and so on. Art does not therefore speak of universal human truths. It is rather – like aesthetic criticism itself – a discursive product whose value should be considered instrumentally. The kind of a critical relationship which I am proposing here might provisionally be classified as discursive or archaeological criticism (in the Foucauldian sense of tracing discursive relationships and their distribution within any given cross-section or strata of cultural life). The role of the critic in such a situation is not one of acknowledging great art. Rather, the critic’s function becomes highly strategic, with interpretations and opinions regarding art works acting as invitations to engagement, consideration and, hence, also to rejection. From the point of view of the audience, too, the critic’s role is one of utility. If a critical description prompts useful, interesting or pleasurable reflections in the reader, then the review has been effective. If it has not, it has no role to play. The response to criticism thus becomes as subjective as the response to the art work itself. Similarly, just as Marcel Duchamp’s act of inverting a urinal and calling it art showed that anyone could be an artist provided they adopted a suitably creative vision of the objects which surrounded them, so anyone and everyone is a legitimate critic of any art work addressed to him or her as an audience. The institutional power accorded to critics by merit of the publications to which they are attached should not obfuscate the fact that anyone has the moral right to venture a critical judgement. It is not actually logically possible to be “right” or “wrong” in attributing qualities to an art work (although I have had artists assert the contrary to me). I like noise art, for example, and find much to stimulate my intellect and my affect in the chaotic feedback characteristic of the work of Merzbow and others. Many others however simply find such sounds to constitute unpleasant noise. Neither commentator is “right”. Both views co-exist. What is important is how these ideas are expressed, what propositions are marshalled to support either position, and how internally cohesive are the arguments supplied by supporters of either proposition. The merit of any particular critical intervention is therefore strictly formal or expressive, lying in its rhetorical construction, rather than in the subjective content of the criticism itself, per se. Clearly, such discursive criticism is of little value in describing works devised according to either an unequivocally liberal humanist or modernist avant-garde perspective. Aesthetic criticism authored in this spirit will not identify the universal, timeless truths of the work, nor will it act as an authoritative barometer of aesthetic value. By the same token though, a recognition of pluralism and instrumentality does not necessarily entail the rejection of categories of value altogether. Such a technique of aesthetic analysis functions primarily in the realm of superficial discursive qualities and formal features, rather than subterranean essences. It is in this sense both anti-Romantic and anti-Platonic. Discursive analysis has its own categories of truth and evaluation. Similarities between works, influences amongst artists and generic or affective precedents become the primary objects of analysis. Such a form of criticism is, in this sense, directly in accord with a similarly self-reflexive, historicised approach to art making itself. Where artists are consciously seeking to engage with their predecessors or peers, to find ways of situating their own work through the development of ideas visible in other cultural objects and historic aesthetic works, then the creation of art becomes itself a form of practical criticism or praxis. The distinction between criticism and its object is, therefore, one of formal expression, not one of nature or essence. Both practices engage with similar materials through a process of reflection (Marshall, “Vertigo”). Having described in philosophical and critical terms what constitutes an unfettered, democratic and strategic model of discursive criticism, it is perhaps useful to close with a more pragmatic description of how I myself attempt to proceed in authoring such criticism and, so, offer at least one possible (and, by definition, subjective) model for discursive criticism. Given that discursive analysis itself developed out of linguistic theory and Saussure’s discussion of the structural nature of signification, it is no surprise that the primary methodology underlying discursive analysis remains that of semiotics: namely how systems of representation and meaning mutually reinforce and support each other, and how they fail to do so. As a critic viewing an art work, it is, therefore, always my first goal to attempt to identify what it is that the artist appears to be trying to do in mounting a production. Is the art work intended as a cultural critique, a political protest, an avant-garde statement, a work of pure escapism, or some other kind of project – and hence one which can be judged according to the generic forms and values associated with such a style in comparison with those by other artists who work in this field? Having determined or intuited this, several related but nominally distinct critical reflections follow. Firstly, how effectively is this intent underpinning the art work achieved, how internally consistent are the tools, forms and themes utilised within the production, and do the affective and historic resonances evoked by the materials employed therein cohere into a logical (or a deliberately fragmented) whole? Secondly, how valid or aesthetically interesting is such a project in the first place, irrespective of whether it was successfully achieved or not? In short, how does the artist’s work compare with its own apparent generic rules, precedents and peers, and is the idea behind the work a contextually valid one or not? The questions of value which inevitably come into these judgements must be weighed according to explicit arguments regarding context, history and genre. It is the discursive transparency of the critique which enables readers to mentally contest the author. Implicitly transcendental models of universal emotional or aesthetic responses should not be invoked. Works of art should, therefore, be judged according to their own manifest terms, and, so, according to the values which appear to govern the relationships which organise materials within the art work. They should also, however, be viewed from a position definitively outside the work, placing the overall concept and its implicit, underlying theses within the context of other precedents, cultural values, political considerations and so on. In other words, one should attempt to heed Hassan’s caution that all art works may be seen both from the perspective of historico-genealogical continuities, as well as according to their own unique, self-defining characteristics and intentions. At the same time, the critical framework of the review itself – while remaining potentially dense and complex – should be as apparent to the reader as possible. The kind of criticism which I author is, therefore, based on a combination of art-historical, generic and socio-cultural comparisons. Critics are clearly able to elaborate more parallels between various artistic and cultural activities than many of their peers in the audience simply because it is the profession of the former to be as familiar with as wide a range of art-historical, cultural and political materials as is possible. This does not, however, make the opinions of the critic “correct”, it merely makes them more potentially dense. Other audiences nevertheless make their own connections, while spectators remain free to state that the particular parallels identified by the critic were not, to their minds, as significant as the critic would contend. The quantity of knowledge from which the critic can select does not verify the accuracy of his or her observations. It rather enables the potential richness of the description. In short, it is high time critics gave up all pretensions to closing off discourse by describing aesthetic works. On the contrary, arts reviewing, like arts production itself, should be seen as an invitation to further discourse, as a gift offered to those who might want it, rather than a Leavisite or Bloom-esque bludgeon to instruct the insensitive masses as to what is supposed to subjectively enlighten and uplift them. It is this sense of engagement – between critic, artist and audience – which provides the truly poetic quality to arts criticism, allowing readers to think creatively in their own right through their own interaction with a collaborative process of rumination on aesthetics and culture. In this way, artists, audiences and critics come to occupy the same terrain, exchanging views and constructing a community of shared ideas, debate and ever-multiplying discursive forms. Ideally, written criticism would come to occupy the same level of authority as an argument between an audience member and a critic at the bar following the staging of a production. I admit myself that even my best written compositions rarely achieve the level of playful interaction which such an environment often provokes. I nevertheless continue to strive for such a form of discursive exchange and bibulous poetry. References Apollonio, Umbro, ed. Futurist Manifestos. London: Thames and Hudson, 1973. Arnold, Matthew. Essays in Criticism. London: Macmillan, 1903-27, published as 2 series. Barthes, Roland. Mythologies. Trans. by Annette Lavers. London: Vintage, 1993. Bloom, Harold. Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human. New York: Riverhead, 1998. Benjamin, Walter. Reflections: Essays, Aphorisms, Autobiographical Writings. Trans. by Edmund Jephcott. New York: Harcourt, 1978. Breton, André. Manifestoes of Surrealism. Trans. by Richard Seaver and Helen Lane. Ann Arbor: Michigan UP, 1972. Eliot, T.S. Collected Poems 1909-1962. London: Faber, 1963. Esslin, Martin. Theatre of the Absurd. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1968. Foucault, Michel. The Archaeology of Knowledge. Trans. by A.M. Sheridan Smith. London: Tavistock, 1972. ———. The History of Sexuality: Volume I: An Introduction. Trans. by Robert Hurley. London: Penguin, 1990. Fukuyama, Francis. The End of History and the Last Man. London: Penguin, 1992. Graham, Martha. Blood Memory. New York: Doubleday, 1991. Hassan, Ihab. “Joyce, Beckett and the Postmodern Imagination.” Triquarterly 32.4 (1975): 192ff. Jameson, Fredric. “Postmodernism, or the Cultural Dominant of Late Capitalism,” New Left Review 146 (1984): 53-92. Leavis, F.R. F.R. Leavis: Essays and Documents. Eds. Ian MacKillop and Richard Storer. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Malevich, Kazimir. In Penny Guggenheim, ed. Art of This Century – Drawings – Photographs – Sculpture – Collages. New York: Art Aid, 1942. Marshall, Jonathan. “Documents in Australian Postmodern Dance: Two Interviews with Lucy Guerin,” in Adrian Kiernander, ed. Dance and Physical Theatre, special edition of Australasian Drama Studies 41 (October 2002): 102-33. ———. “Operatic Tradition and Ambivalence in Chamber Made Opera’s Recital (Chesworth, Horton, Noonan),” in Keith Gallasch and Laura Ginters, eds. Music Theatre in Australia, special edition of Australasian Drama Studies 45 (October 2004): 72-96. ———. “Vertigo: Between the Word and the Act,” Independent Performance Forums, series of essays commissioned by Not Yet It’s Difficult theatre company and published in RealTime Australia 35 (2000): 10. Merzbow. Venereology. Audio recording. USA: Relapse, 1994. Richards, Alison, Geoffrey Milne, et al., eds. Pearls before Swine: Australian Theatre Criticism, special edition of Meajin 53.3 (Spring 1994). Tzara, Tristan. Seven Dada Manifestos and Lampisteries. Trans. by Barbara Wright. London: Calder, 1992. Vaughan, David. Merce Cunningham: Fifty Years. Ed. Melissa Harris. New York: Aperture, 1997. Citation reference for this article MLA Style Marshall, Jonathan. "Inciting Reflection: A Short Manifesto for and Introduction to the Discursive Reviewing of the Arts." M/C Journal 8.5 (2005). echo date('d M. Y'); ?> <http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0510/08-marshall.php>. APA Style Marshall, J. (Oct. 2005) "Inciting Reflection: A Short Manifesto for and Introduction to the Discursive Reviewing of the Arts," M/C Journal, 8(5). Retrieved echo date('d M. Y'); ?> from <http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0510/08-marshall.php>.