Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By William Alexander Donald, Professor of Chemistry, UNSW Sydney

In recent decades, millions of Australians have embraced body art – an estimated 30% of adults have a tattoo. Over a third of those with tattoos have five or more pieces.

Trend reporting from industry and lifestyle sources suggests designs are becoming increasingly large, colourful and complex. Although tattoos have become more common, less attention has been paid to what’s in the inks being injected into people’s skin.

In a study published today in the Journal of Hazardous Materials, our team analysed tattoo inks available in Australia. We found they contain carcinogenic organic chemicals and toxic metals at levels that wouldn’t meet existing European safety standards.

Tattoo ink regulations

Injected into living tissue, tattoo inks are designed to last essentially permanently. Once in the body, pigments can persist, migrate through the lymphatic system or slowly break down over time.

Concerns about tattoo ink composition are not new. In Europe, early guidance on such inks emerged more than a decade ago, and was initially non-binding. As tattooing became more widespread, regulators moved towards stricter controls.

Since 2022, the European Union has enforced binding chemical limits on tattoo inks, restricting metals including arsenic, cadmium and lead as well as specific organic compounds that are known or suspected to be carcinogenic. Tattoo inks that don’t comply cannot be legally sold in EU member countries.

Australia doesn’t have an equivalent national framework for regulating tattoo ink. There’s minimal routine oversight of what tattoo inks contain in Australia, and consumers have limited information available. There’s no requirement to perform routine batch testing of inks sold in Australia.

Oversight relies on voluntary compliance, with one government survey released in 2016, and updated in 2018. That survey found many inks wouldn’t meet European guidelines, which at the time were less restrictive than the current EU framework.

Similar issues with tattoo inks have been found in the United States, Sweden and Turkey. Problems included inaccurate labelling, elevated metal concentrations, and in some cases evidence of cellular toxicity in lab tests. While people sometimes have acute reactions to tattoo ink, detecting potential long-term or chronic exposures is much harder.

What we did and what we found

The project began with an interesting question from a high school student. As part of her senior year research project, Bianca Tasevski, then at St Mary Star of the Sea College in Wollongong, contacted the School of Chemistry at UNSW Sydney to ask what was actually in tattoo inks.

To answer the question, we analysed 15 tattoo inks including black and coloured inks sold in Australia. The inks were all from major, established international brands widely used by tattoo artists.

This analysis provides a snapshot of inks currently sold in Australia, and was not intended to monitor batches across locations as a surveillance exercise, which is a role arguably more suited to regulators. Thus, specific brands are not disclosed.

With two standard, widely used laboratory approaches, we measured the concentrations of metals in the inks and screened for a broad range of organic chemicals.

Every ink we tested would have failed at least one EU safety requirement. We detected multiple toxic metals at concentrations exceeding EU law. These include arsenic, cadmium, chromium and lead. Although detected at trace levels, these concentrations are considered unacceptable for tattoo inks by EU regulators.

We also identified organic compounds in some inks, including aromatic amines restricted in EU countries because of their carcinogenic potential.

Some patterns emerged across ink types. Black inks contained a broader range of regulated metals, while brightly coloured inks often contained high levels of specific pigment-associated metals.

Why pigments often contain metals

Ideally, tattoo pigments should be bright, stable and resistant to fading. Metals are particularly important in obtaining such properties.

Metals are not always intentionally included in inks. They can be residues or impurities from pigment manufacturing, or byproducts from incomplete purification.

In our study, we found extremely high concentrations of some pigment-associated metals including titanium, aluminium and zirconium in specific coloured inks.

These metals aren’t currently restricted in tattoo ink under EU legislation, but their presence at such high levels is notable because of long exposure times, unknown chemical forms, and unknown effects of chronic exposure.

Ink chemistry is not the same as health risk

We’re not toxicologists, and our study doesn’t assess health effects. Our work was limited to analysing the chemical composition of tattoo inks. We didn’t measure how much of these substances are absorbed into the body, how they behave over time, or whether they cause any harm.

Health effects will depend strongly on many factors including chemical form, dose, exposure time and individual biology. Cancer Council Australia advises tattoos have not been shown to cause cancer, but notes concerns about ink composition.

A number of epidemiological studies have examined potential links between tattoos and health outcomes. However, such studies are challenging to interpret without directly measuring ink chemistry or exposure.

We need better regulation

The findings point to a clear regulatory gap in consumer protection. Many tattoo inks available in Australia wouldn’t meet current EU standards and there’s no routine system in place to identify or address this blind spot.

A sensible, practical step would be increasing the monitoring of tattoo inks and reviewing Australian standards to align with international best practice. This would improve transparency, provide clearer information to consumers, and reduce unnecessary exposure to hazardous substances.

Tattoos are a form of self-expression that many Australians value. As with other products that are injected into the body, knowing what they contain is a reasonable starting point for oversight and informed decision-making.

William Alexander Donald receives funding from the Australian Research Council, National Health and Medical Research Council, Department of Education, icare Dust Diseases Board, Coal Services NSW Health & Safety Trust, and several industry research contracts, however none are related to tattoo inks or the tattoo industry. He is an advisor to Preview Health and Mass Affinity. He is president of the Australian & New Zealand Society for Mass Spectrometry.

Jake P. Violi does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Lead, arsenic and other toxic metals abound in tattoo inks sold in Australia – new study – https://theconversation.com/lead-arsenic-and-other-toxic-metals-abound-in-tattoo-inks-sold-in-australia-new-study-273451

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bruce Wolpe, Non-resident Senior Fellow, United States Study Centre, University of Sydney

As Donald Trump celebrates the anniversary of his second inauguration as president of the United States and begins his sixth year in office, his greatest asset is power. He covets absolute power.

The greatest threat to how Trump completes his term is how he wields his power.

Indeed, in the most foolish act in foreign policy in Trump’s presidency, he has threatened punitive tariffs on Denmark and seven other NATO allies in Europe to force the sale of Greenland to the United States. They are outraged. This is a ridiculous ploy that will not deliver Greenland to Trump.

Read more:
Trump has threatened European countries with higher tariffs if he doesn’t get Greenland. Will it work?

Trump’s escalation in Denmark has already strengthened Putin’s iron resolve to get as much of Ukraine as he can. Prospects for ending the war in Ukraine are now near zero.

On top of Trump’s pending tariffs on Europe, if Trump seizes Greenland, the consequences will shake the world – including Australia. NATO will be terminated. Australia will face an existential question of whether, under those circumstances, it must terminate its alliance with the US.

We can see in a raft of polls at this one-year mark of Trump’s second term that voters across the country are expressing growing disquiet about his management of the economy and the affordability of housing and groceries, the raids by ICE agents as they seize and deport migrants as we saw last week in Minneapolis, and uncertainty about Trump’s foreign adventurism in the Americas and with Iran.

Trump is exercising this power because he can. This will jolt Republicans in Congress to break with Trump on this issue – the first such rift between Trump and his party since his re-election.

Welcome to Trump’s year six.

Trumpism in his second term

Following his election victory in 2024, Trump has been faithful to three of four pillars of Trumpism that made his base a movement that has changed America:

• nativism (favouring US-born citizens over immigrants)

• protectionism and tariffs

• America First nationalism (“Make America Great Again”).

To those ends, Trump is acting aggressively, with immigration agents arresting and deporting tens of thousands, and threats to deploy US troops in American cities to enforce these policies. Trump has imposed punitive tariffs against every trading partner – including Australia, which has a significant trade deficit with the United States. Trump demands foreign companies invest in the United States and build new factories.

But on the fourth Trumpism pillar – America-First isolationism as a driver of America’s foreign policy – Trump has redefined his foreign policy settings with grander ambitions.

Trump has rejected the history of the US waging wars to project American values: protecting Asia from communism in Korea and Vietnam; turning back brutal aggression in Kuwait; punishing the export of radical Islamic terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Trump has applied these lessons to Iran – so far. It is one thing to take out Iran’s nuclear capability. It is another to do regime change – a bridge too far back to the “forever wars” Trump despises.

Trump has buried America’s posture of globalism. He has withdrawn the US from virtually all the architecture, save the United Nations itself, erected after the second world war to ensure global security, stability and prosperity. He has ordered the US out of global organisations, and has cut billions in foreign aid.

The US attack on Venezuela was about much larger goals than arresting its leader. It was about power – controlling power over critical resources in the Americas, from Venezuela to Greenland and everything in between, from Mexico to Cuba to Canada.

Politics at home

Trump is paying a high price at home for his activism in wielding power abroad. Every day Trump spends projecting power outside the United States means he is not paying attention to the American people.

A recent poll shows 56% of US adults believe Trump has gone too far on Venezuela. 57% do not want the US to strike Iran. Even before Trump’s tariff announcement on Greenland, only 17% approved of Trump’s desire to acquire Greenland, and 71% rejected using military force to do it.

Trump’s overall polls are bad. His approval rating is 40% – nearly 10 points down since his inauguration – and disapproval is at 60%. AP-NORC also finds that “Trump hasn’t convinced the Americans that the economy is in good shape.”

CNN polling reports that 55% of those surveyed believe Trump’s policies “have hurt the economy” and that Trump is not doing enough to lower prices. Grocery prices are up sharply. The latest Wall Street Journal poll shows Trump is underwater by double digits on handling inflation, and that he is not focusing enough on the economy.

On immigration, the unrest in Minneapolis and other cities from the harsh methods employed by ICE agents is also taking a toll, with Trump’s approval on that issue lagging below 40%.

But even with all these red flags and warnings from the field, Trump is undeterred. He believes that as president, he can do anything he wants to do. Guardrails that have for decades protected America’s democracy have been cast aside.

Trump has not been blocked – yet – by an ultra-conservative Supreme Court or the pliant Republican Congress for the tariffs he is imposing, the government agencies he has shut down, the monies appropriated by Congress he has terminated, the hundreds of thousands of government employees he has fired, the military strikes he has ordered without advising, much less getting approval from, Congress.

Trump is seeking more control over the economy by seeking to prosecute the chair of the Federal Reserve Bank, an independent agency that sets monetary policy, and to pack its board with loyalists to Trump’s demands that interest rates be lowered.

Since his inauguration, Trump has instructed the Justice Department to prosecute those who attempted to bring him to justice in courtrooms and impeachment proceedings in Congress.

Trump’s musings on power

As Trump consolidates his power, Trump’s musings become imperatives. After months of expressing a desire to own it, Trump is now acting aggressively to conquer Greenland.

At home, Trump is now also musing – twice so far this month – over whether the US midterm elections will be cancelled. Trump knows the likelihood of the Democrats taking back control of the House of Representatives is high. That is precisely what he suffered in the 2018 congressional elections in his first term.

Trump told Reuters last week, “We shouldn’t even have an election,” because of all his great successes.

In January, Trump told Republicans in the House, “I won’t say cancel the election, they should cancel the election, because the fake news would say, ‘He wants the elections cancelled. He’s a dictator.’ They always call me a dictator.” He told them that if the Democrats take the House back they will “find a reason to impeach” him.

Any steps taken – such as declaring martial law to suspend the midterm elections – will be catastrophic. And that is an understatement.

Based on Trump’s restless mind and command of what he believes is absolute power, at stake this year are the future of democracy at home and alliances abroad.

Bruce Wolpe receives funding from the United States Studies Centre. He has worked with the Democrats in the US Congress and for Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

– ref. A year on from his second inauguration, Trump 2.0 has one defining word: power – https://theconversation.com/a-year-on-from-his-second-inauguration-trump-2-0-has-one-defining-word-power-273697

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Arosha Weerakoon, Senior Lecturer and General Dentist, School of Dentistry, The University of Queensland

Day or night, many of us grind or clench our teeth, and don’t even realise we’re doing it. Here are three questions to ask yourself.

At least once a week, do you:

• feel sore in your temple, face, jaw or near your ear?

• have pain when you open your mouth or chew?

• feel your jaw lock, click or become stuck?

If you answered “yes” at least once, you may be grinding or clenching your teeth (known as bruxism).

So why do we do it? And is there any way to stop? Let’s take a look.

What happens when you clench or grind?

Clenching or grinding your teeth is involuntary. We unconsciously activate our chewing muscles, tightening or thrusting the bottom jaw and clenching the teeth together or grinding them against one another.

Nearly one in six of us do this while sleeping, and one in four while awake.

Grinding your teeth while asleep makes a distinct noise. (If you share a bed, your partner might be able to tell you about it!)

Is it bad for you?

Mild, occasional grinding or clenching isn’t usually a problem.

But if you do it often or very forcefully, this habit can cause many tooth, jaw joint and muscle issues, interrupt sleep, and contribute to tension headaches or ear pain.

These issues can become painful and be expensive to manage.

Over time, it can also fracture and crack your teeth.

Read more:
What happens to teeth as you age? And how can you extend the life of your smile?

Why do I clench or grind my teeth?

There is usually a mix of physical, mental and lifestyle factors.

You are more likely to clench and grind if you:

• experience stress, anxiety and depression

• take certain medications, such as those used to manage schizophrenia, psychosis and depression

• have too much caffeine, nicotine and/or alcohol

• experience interrupted sleep, including from unexpected noises such as phone notifications.

There is also a strong link with sleep apnoea, a condition which stops you breathing regularly while asleep and deprives your brain and body of oxygen.

Low oxygen triggers the release of stress hormones. These increase your heart rate and activate full body muscle spasms, which can also increase grinding and clenching.

Can my dentist tell from looking at my teeth?

Your dentist will usually review any health issues and medications. They may ask if you experience jaw pain, headaches, difficulty chewing or jaw locking. They may also ask about your sleep experience.

In your mouth, your dentist will look for teeth or fillings that have been chipped or worn down.

Teeth that are unusually worn down can also be a sign of acid reflux. This causes stomach acid to seep into the mouth, which softens the hard enamel that protects your tooth.

As a result, people who clench and grind their teeth and also suffer from reflux tend to chip and wear down their teeth a lot faster.

Another common sign is white ridges inside your cheeks and scallop-shaped indentations around your tongue. These are formed when the cheeks and tongue get caught against the teeth when you clench or grind them.

Other signs your dentist will look for include:

• shrunken or receded gums

• loose or wobbly teeth and

• teeth that have moved away from their original position.

What can I do about it?

Clenching and grinding your teeth is highly manageable. Your health practitioner can help you identify the causes and manage symptoms.

Your doctor can review your medications and investigate potential underlying issues, such as reflux, arthritis in the jaw or sleep apnoea.

You can also ask your doctor to assess you for sleep apnoea to see if you need a polysomnograph test.

This test is the gold standard used to diagnose sleep disorders, including clenching and grinding your teeth.

To check if the test is required, your doctor will ask questions about your sleep experience, fatigue levels and whether you fall asleep while doing everyday activities.

A physiotherapist who specialises in jaw pain can help with joint locking, clicking or tension headaches with a combination of tailored exercises and stretching.

Pain-relieving medication can also help.

Your dentist may recommend a night guard or occlusal splint to protect your teeth from wear, reduce muscle tension and jaw clicking. These are acrylic or nylon appliances custom-made to fit over the teeth in your top jaw – like a sports mouth guard, but smaller.

When these options don’t relieve symptoms, some people may consider botox injections to block the signals that control specific jaw muscle movement, reducing clenching and associated pain.

However, botox is expensive and not effective for everyone. It is also short-acting, so will require frequent visits to a neurologist or specially trained dentist.

The bottom line

If you think you’re clenching and grinding your teeth, speaking to your doctor or dentist is the best place to start.

But remember, physiotherapy, night guards and painkillers treat the consequences of clenching and grinding, not its causes.

So it’s also worth thinking about ways to reduce your stress and develop good sleep habits.

Some simple adjustments to relax and unwind – such as drinking less caffeine and alcohol and keeping devices out of the bedroom at night – may improve your health and help avoid pain and expensive treatments.

Arosha Weerakoon owns a dental practice. She is a member of the Australian Dental Association and a Fellow of the Royal Australasian College of Dental Surgeons.

Amit Arora receives funding from the Australlian National Health and Medical Research Council and NSW Ministry of Health. He is a dental practitioner member (Teaching and Research) on the Dental Board of Australia.

– ref. I think I’m grinding or clenching my teeth. Why? And can anything help? – https://theconversation.com/i-think-im-grinding-or-clenching-my-teeth-why-and-can-anything-help-270294

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Phil Lester, Professor of Ecology and Entomology, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

New Zealand now has a genuine chance to stamp out one of the most damaging invasive insects to reach our shores: the Asian yellow-legged hornet.

But what happens over the next few months might just decide whether the species is eliminated or becomes established.

It has now been three months since the yellow-legged hornet was first detected in Auckland and the eradication response is showing real signs of progress.

So far, 43 queen hornets have been found and killed in Auckland. Each one represents a nest that would otherwise have produced thousands of voracious workers, capable of consuming huge numbers of insects, including key pollinators such as honey bees.

Worse still, by autumn those same nests would have produced thousands of new queens. That next generation would have dispersed widely, helping the hornet spread across much of New Zealand.

We only need to look to overseas experience to see what is at stake. In parts of Europe where the yellow-legged hornet has become established, losses of honey bee hives of 30% to 80% have been recorded. There have also been serious risks to people, with stings causing intense pain and swelling, and, in rare cases, severe allergic reactions that have proved fatal.

Encouragingly, the response led by the Ministry for Primary Industries appears to have been effective, with many nests located and destroyed.

And the contribution from the public has been extraordinary. Of the 43 nests discovered, 18 were from public notifications. More than 9,520 reports of suspected hornets have been submitted from across the country.

These reports have directly helped locate nests, which so far have all been found around Glenfield and Birkdale on Auckland’s North Shore.

This first phase of the eradication programme has achieved what we hoped. Early on, new nests were being discovered almost daily. The more that crews searched, the more they found.

Importantly, the response now appears to have reached a point where intensive searching no longer turns up new nests on a daily or weekly basis. That is encouraging, but it does not mean the job is done. For eradication to succeed, every last nest must be found and destroyed.

The next phase – and why it’s crucial

The next phase of the response, running through January and much of February, will mostly rely on trapping and tracking worker hornets.

Any surviving nests are likely to change behaviour. Queens and workers from early
“primary nests” typically relocate higher into nearby trees, forming larger “secondary nests” that are hard to find.

These nests can contain many thousands of workers and hungry larvae that need constant feeding.

From now on, hornet workers from any remaining nests will become more abundant and more visible. This is when public vigilance matters most.

Hornets may be attracted to beer, gardens, fruit trees and beehives. Setting traps, photographing suspicious insects, and submitting reports to MPI’s hotline will help us to find those nests and might make the difference between eradication success and failure.

Once hornet workers are discovered, their nest can be tracked. The search crews now have the equipment to capture and tie small radio-trackers to foraging workers.

When the hornet flies back to its nest, it unknowingly leads search crews straight to it, enabling entire colonies to be destroyed.

Later in February, before new queens and males are produced in autumn, the programme will enter its final phase: baiting with Vespex.

Vespex is a protein bait developed in New Zealand for controlling invasive Vespula wasps. It won a World Wildlife Fund Conservation Innovation Award in 2015 for its effectiveness in killing invasive wasps and protecting native ecosystems.

Wasps and hornet workers are attracted to Vespex and carry the bait back to their nests, where it eliminates the colony. Importantly, previous work has shown Vespex to be safe for pollinators such as honey bees.

I see Vespex as a vital safety net. It can be deployed cheaply over the area of infestation, helping to eliminate any small or cryptic nests that might otherwise be missed.

For eradication to work, we must get every last nest.

Keeping the momentum going

Biosecurity Minister Andrew Hoggard has committed $12 million to support the hornet eradication response through to June 2026. This level of funding is fantastic and should provide much needed resources.

For eradication to succeed, continued community involvement will be essential. Public reporting of sightings, the use and monitoring of traps, and vigilance by beekeepers – particularly around hive entrances where hornets may be hawking bees – all remain vital to locating any remaining nests.

Public support to date has been outstanding and has played a substantial role in the discovery of nests. Peoples’ contribution remains essential and arguably more important now than at any earlier stage of the response.

Clear guidance on identifying yellow-legged hornets, making traps and submitting sightings is available through the Ministry for Primary Industries.

We have a major opportunity to eradicate this species from New Zealand in 2026. The next few months will determine whether that opportunity is realised.

Phil Lester serves on the Technical Advisory Group for the Ministry for Primary Industries’ hornet response.

– ref. The yellow-legged hornet eradication is on track – but the next few months are crucial – https://theconversation.com/the-yellow-legged-hornet-eradication-is-on-track-but-the-next-few-months-are-crucial-273696

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ben Zunica, Lecturer in Mathematics Education, University of Sydney

As the new school year approaches, many parents may be thinking about getting a tutor for their child.

Media reporting estimates one in six Australian students get tutoring at some point in their schooling, to help them catch up, qualify for specific schools or prepare for important exams.

But how should parents approach the task of finding a tutor? Our 2025 research highlighted the lack of national standards for tutor qualifications, safety practices and teaching quality. This means parents often have little guidance on choosing a provider they can trust. Unlike school teachers, anyone can call themselves a “tutor” in Australia.

Here are five considerations to help families make more informed, confident decisions about hiring a tutor.

Read more:
Private tutoring for school kids is ‘booming’. But this poses risks for students

1. Start with clear goals

Begin by talking to your child to get a shared understanding of what you and they hope tutoring will achieve. Also have a discussion with their classroom or subject teacher who can give advice on the focus, frequency and type of tutoring.

For some students, the goal may be improved performance on assessments. For others, the priority might be rebuilding confidence, strengthening maths or literacy skills, or developing an enjoyment of learning.

Then identify two or three measurable goals. This allows parents to monitor progress over time and hold tutors accountable.

Ask your tutor how they might go about achieving these goals to ensure everyone is on the same page.

It is important to review progress after a few months, and check in with the classroom teacher. If goals are not being met, the arrangement should be reconsidered. Effective tutoring should complement classroom learning and aim to make itself unnecessary over time.

2. Understand your budget and the support you need

Tutoring varies widely in format, cost and purpose.

One-to-one sessions can provide targeted support, but can be more expensive. Group settings may offer structure, peer motivation and reduced cost.

Families should also decide whether they prefer a qualified teacher or whether a university student or specialist tutor with relevant subject expertise can meet their needs.

For example, if your child needs help catching up, a tutor with a teaching qualification who understands the relevant curriculum and teaching methods might be best. If your child needs help with difficult homework questions, a university student may be OK.

Importantly, higher fees do not always guarantee higher quality tutoring. Parents should instead look to try and match up their goals, the tutor’s expertise and their household budget.

You also need to consider how many hours you want your child tutored each week. Evidence suggests shorter, high-quality targeted sessions are best.

3. Check safety and qualifications

Because the tutoring industry is sparsely regulated, parents need to make sure tutors are safe and appropriately skilled.

At a minimum, families should request a Working With Children Check or equivalent and evidence of relevant qualifications.

Relevant qualifications may include a teaching degree, subject-specific university studies or other credible training, for example, via the Australian Tutoring Association.

If your child is in early primary school, you should consider sitting in on the sessions or at least remaining close by.

4. Meet the tutor first

Parents should arrange a preliminary meeting with the tutor or tutoring centre before you commit.

This meeting can reveal whether the tutor’s communication style, expectations and learning environment are a good fit for the child. Parents should ask how the tutor assesses student needs, aligns instruction with the school curriculum, provides feedback, and handles homework or preparation requirements.

This meeting may also provide an opportunity to determine whether the tutor(s) foster a safe, supportive environment in which the child feels comfortable.

A reputable tutor should be happy to engage in these initial conversations free of charge.

5. Be aware of red flags

Red flags could include guarantees of rapid or dramatic results, requests for large up-front payments, or reluctance to explain teaching approaches and qualifications.

Also watch out for tutors who avoid communication with parents or schools, avoid discussing progress, or rely exclusively on worksheets and test drilling. This approach is unlikely to develop your child’s understanding.

High-quality tutors should be transparent about their methods, welcome questions, and view tutoring as a supportive complement to school learning rather than a replacement.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Thinking of a tutor for your child? 5 things to consider first – https://theconversation.com/thinking-of-a-tutor-for-your-child-5-things-to-consider-first-271742

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lisa A Williams, Associate Professor, School of Psychology, UNSW Sydney

I recently experienced Ron Mueck: Encounter at the Art Gallery of New South Wales. I have no training in art appreciation or history, and I went with minimal prior knowledge about Mueck’s work or the pieces in the exhibit.

I had, however, heard his works are psychologically evocative. So I approached the experience with an open mind, and a social psychologist’s inquisitiveness.

If I had to choose three words to capture my naive experience, they would be uncanny, curious and awesome. I’ll explain.

Uncanny

The most dominant feature of my experience was a deep sense of uncanniness.

The uncanny valley is the point where the normally positive linear relationship between how human-like a robot is, and how familiar and likable it is, dissolves. Robots in the uncanny valley are perceived as creepy and eerie, and elicit repulsion instead of attraction.

The concept also applies to art. Many of Mueck’s works are uncanny. His sculptures are superbly realistic. The wrinkles at an elbow. The whites of the toenails. The curve of a nose.

But Mueck also plays with features that undermine realism, tipping into hyperrealism. Many pieces are too large, or too small, to actually be human. The viewer’s mind is trapped: how can the sculpture seem so real but also be so obviously not real?

My visceral reaction to Dark Place, a large 1.4 metre face of a man with a menacing expression, epitomises the uncanny valley. Just as soon as I stepped into the darkened viewing area, I backed away quickly, saying “nope!” (hopefully quietly) to myself. Yes, I knew he wasn’t real. But he felt so real. I was, he was, we were in the uncanny valley.

One explanation for the uncanny valley is “violated expectations” where a human replica seems real – but the realisation it’s not brings about a sense of unease.

At first glimpse, it wouldn’t be implausible that Ghost, a woman in a swimsuit leaning against a wall, would turn her head, push off the wall and walk away. But of course she can’t – she’s not real. Uncanny.

Other explanations of the uncanny valley call on mind perception, whereby human mental capacities are attributed or denied to entities in the world. Human replicas such as artworks don’t have the capacity to think and feel as humans do – but are often depicted as being able to do so.

Mueck’s faces invite the viewer to contemplate what’s being thought or felt. A poignant example of this is Spooning Couple, featuring a couple in bed. The pair’s body positions are telling – including the man’s arm tucked at his chest rather than over his partner’s body, and the slight gap between them. But their contemplative faces present a depth of thought that is – without a better word – uncanny.

Based on all of this, you might surmise I didn’t enjoy the exhibit. But, esthetic experience is multidimensional. It wasn’t all eerie, aversive uncanniness.

Curious

Most notably, I experienced moments of acute curiosity, the emotional experience of wanting to fill a gap of the unknown.

Mueck’s work drives the audience to wonder why he made the decisions he did. This is perhaps most pronounced in Young Couple, which depicts a pair of adolescents standing next to one another. Intriguing even from the front, my curiosity was spiked on walking around the back and seeing the acute angle and tightness of their held hands.

My reaction was instant: what is happening here? A moment of reproach? Conflict? Possession? There’s no way to know.

Other curious choices peppered the exhibit. The consistent flat-footedness of Mueck’s figures. The odd selection of non-humans included a chicken, dogs, a pig. The juxtaposition of solo statues and pairs of people with a large group of oversize growling dogs.

Unfulfilled curiosity can sometimes be frustrating. At the exhibit, though, sitting with the questions was satisfying. One point of art, it seems, is to raise more questions than answer them. In this, Mueck has succeeded.

Awesome

Rounding out the trio of characteristics of my experience is awe: the emotion experienced when we witness something outside our understanding, often vast or complex. The experience is wonder and amazement.

Mueck’s works dance in the space between possible and impossible, just beyond the line of comprehension. I lost count of how many times I thought in wonder, “How did he do that?”

It’s unfathomable to me that someone can create something so very lifelike and evocative. To consider the skill required to produce his pieces was a process of expanding my own mind.

Speaking now as a positive emotion researcher, I think the key to the impact of Encounter rests in what we know about the outcomes of experiencing awe.

This unique emotion shifts the way we think about the world, creating what’s been coined the “small self effect”. In awe, we feel smaller in relation to the world around us. This change in perspective is powerful. It prompts curiosity and critical thinking. Awe also drives a desire for social connection, a sense of satisfaction with life and generosity.

By evoking awe, Mueck is shifting the way people see and interact with their worlds. That is powerful indeed.

Ron Mueck: Encounter is at the Art Gallery of New South Wales until April 12.

Lisa A Williams has received funding from the Australian government (Australian Research Council; Department of Industry, Science, and Resources).

– ref. Uncanny, curious and awesome: an expert in psychology breaks down what we feel in the face of Ron Mueck’s sculptures – https://theconversation.com/uncanny-curious-and-awesome-an-expert-in-psychology-breaks-down-what-we-feel-in-the-face-of-ron-muecks-sculptures-271830

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

While federal parliament devoted Monday to emotion-filled Bondi condolence speeches, behind the scenes government and opposition inched to a deal to pass on Tuesday Labor’s fall-back measures relating to hate.

Late Monday, the Liberal Party room ticked off on the agreement.

The legislation will be introduced into parliament on Tuesday morning and put through both houses in a day. The measures will facilitate the banning of organisations that promote racial hatred, as well as enabling the refusal or cancellation of visas on the basis of hate-motivated conduct.

The deal is a parachute for both Anthony Albanese and Sussan Ley, who have each been criticised as they faced off in an impasse over the government’s earlier, now split, omnibus bill.

While everything is being undesirably rushed – illustrated by the fact the report of a parliamentary inquiry into the measures was not expected to be tabled until Tuesday – both sides on Monday were anxious for a quick settlement.

The government, after having to scrap the anti-vilification part of its original package, wanted to deliver what was left of its measures at this special parliamentary sitting. The opposition was aware of the risk of looking hypocritical if it were to oppose everything.

The changes obtained in the negotiations include:

• strengthening aggravated offences so all extremist preachers and leaders, including visiting speakers, are captured by the law

• strengthening the role of parliament in examining these powers, including by inserting mandatory two year reviews by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to ensure new powers are effective, proportionate and accountable

• making the Prohibited Hate Groups Listing Framework more targeted to those most dangerous hate groups seeking to incite violence

• requiring consultation with the Leader of the Opposition on both the listing and delisting of extremist organisations, strengthening the bipartisan approaching to national security

• closing gaps in hate crime definitions so Commonwealth offences are properly covered, and

• ensuring migration powers are used decisively to remove extremists who threaten community safety.

The broad changes the opposition wanted went through Sunday’s shadow cabinet meeting.

The Nationals were still examining the detailed outcome on Monday evening.

Nationals leader David Littleproud told the ABC’s 7.30 program the Nationals wanted to make sure the proposed ban on hate groups did not contain any “overreach”. “We are trying to do that as quickly and carefully as we can,” he said.

Albanese and Ley met early Monday. The opposition put forward changes it sought, which the government took away to consider.

The opposition is set to vote against the package’s gun reform measures but these are assured of passage with the support of the Greens.

Nationals Senate Leader Bridget McKenzie said in a statement the Nationals would oppose “unfair gun laws which will punish law abiding Australian firearms owners for the actions of Islamic extremists”.

By Monday afternoon, the detail of the measure relating to banning organisations appeared the main issue being finessed.

Opposition home affairs spokesman Jonno Duniam said it was “excellent” that the government at the weekend ditched the racial vilification provision in its original package. “They were unworkable and the cost, the potential impacts on freedom of speech, were not worth contemplating in the rushed process we’re going through.”

But, asked whether the government should go back to an anti-vilification measure, given the special envoy to combat antisemitism Jillian Segal recommended it, Duniam told Sky the government “should consider bringing it back and indeed go through a proper process”.

Crossbencher Allegra Spender said, “I am deeply disappointed that our parliamentarians have not been able to unite around anti-vilification legislation. We have heard a lot of speeches today about pushing out hatred and extremism, but our MPs haven’t yet been able to unite around a practical way of achieving that vision.”

Victorian Labor MP Josh Burns, who is Jewish, said: “I know that there would be people inside the Coalition right now who would be deeply uncomfortable with their position on the racial vilification and serious vilification clauses that should have been in this bill.

“I genuinely hope that there’s no incidents and that no one has to deal with this. And if that’s the case, and we can all walk away and we’ve got enough done. Well, so be it. But I fear that that may not be the case,” he said.

Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. View from The Hill: Liberals tick off deal on hate crime measures – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-liberals-tick-off-deal-on-hate-crime-measures-272435