• Refine Query
  • Source
  • Publication year
  • to
  • Language
  • 2
  • 1
  • Tagged with
  • 4
  • 3
  • 3
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • About
  • The Global ETD Search service is a free service for researchers to find electronic theses and dissertations. This service is provided by the Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations.
    Our metadata is collected from universities around the world. If you manage a university/consortium/country archive and want to be added, details can be found on the NDLTD website.
1

In the Wilderness: Federal Labor in Opposition

Lavelle, Ashley, n/a January 2004 (has links)
This thesis is a study of the federal Australian Labor Party (ALP) in Opposition. It seeks to identify the various factors that shape the political direction of the party when it is out of office by examining three important periods of Labor Opposition. It is argued in the first period (1967-72) that the main factor in the party’s move to the left was the radicalisation that occurred in Australian (and global) politics. Labor in Opposition is potentially more subject to influence by extra-parliamentary forces such as trade unions and social movements. This was true for this period in the case of the reinvigorated trade union movement and the Anti-Vietnam War Movement, whose policy impacts on the ALP under Gough Whitlam are examined in detail. While every one of the party's policies cannot be attributed to the tumult of the period, it is argued that Labor's Program embodied the mood for social change. The second period (1975-83) records a much different experience. After Labor's Dismissal from office in November 1975, the enduring conclusion drawn by the party was that it had failed in government as economic managers, and that in future it would need to embrace responsible economic management and to jettison programmatic-style reform. This conclusion was accepted and argued by both federal leaders during this time, Gough Whitlam (1975-77) and Bill Hayden (1977-83). The thesis argues that the key reason for Labor's abandonment of reformist politics was the dramatic shift in the economic context wrought by the collapse of the post-war boom in 1974, which undermined the economic basis of the Program. The degree to which 'economic responsibility' governed Labor's approach to policy-making is highlighted through case studies of uranium mining and the Prices-Incomes Accord. The final period of Opposition (1996-2001) commences with the party’s landslide defeat at the 1996 Federal Election. Under the leadership of Kim Beazley, the party continued in the pro-free market policy tradition of Labor Prime Ministers Bob Hawke and Paul Keating. In conjunction with this, it employed a 'small-target' strategy that pitched its electoral success on community anger towards the government, rather than any alternative policies of the Opposition. The free-market policy continuity is set in the context of the ideological effects of the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the collapse of the Soviet Bloc, in the aftermath of which all political players accepted that there was no real alternative to the market. Furthermore, the overall state of the Australian and world economies was not conducive to a return to 'tax and spend' policies. The party’s bipartisanship on globalisation and economic rationalism effectively robbed it of an alternative political approach to that of the Coalition. Thus, in a sense it was hemmed into the 'small-target' strategy. The thesis concludes by comparing and contrasting the three periods, and assigning weight to the various factors that shape Labor in Opposition.
2

Beazley's Myson : the definition of an artistic personality in Attic vase-painting

Berge, Louise January 1975 (has links)
No description available.
3

The Pistoxenos Painter, revisão crítica da atribuição de John Davidson Beazley / The Pistoxenos Painter, critical revision of the attribution of John Davidson Beazley

Sanches, Pedro Luis Machado 23 April 2010 (has links)
Desde a primeira publicação da alcunha Pistóxenos Painter (Pintor de Pistóxenos), designando o artista cujas mãos originaram pinturas de um conjunto de vasos áticos, passou-se a dispor de uma nova classificação para este material. Tal classificação ainda e tida como muito mais precisa que qualquer cronologia ou tipologia existente. Quase a totalidade dos pesquisadores de ceramologia e iconografia gregas entenderam que enquanto a denominação foi uma invenção moderna, o pintor anônimo por ela determinado foi uma descoberta. O autor desta e de centenas de outras atribuições, o helenista inglês John D. Beazley (1885-1970), foi indubitavelmente o mais importante perito ou connaisseur de que se tem registro, a julgar pela extensão enciclopédica de suas listas de pintores e pela aceitação quase universal dos resultados de seu método de atribuir. Críticas e revisões deste método (surgente no século XIX, com os estudos do medico e perito Giovanni Morelli) são datadas já das primeiras décadas do século XX e tiveram uma historia descontinua e desprestigiada. Uma analise recorrente do revisionismo o atribui a falha de seus defensores e a ignorância das técnicas morellianas. Talvez a principal característica dos ataques dirigidos as atribuições de Beazley tenha sido a falta de importância atribuída ao reconhecimento de pintores vasculares. Seja pela proximidade com a arte do metal, seja pelo lugar que estes artistas ocupavam na sociedade ateniense, sobretudo entre o fim das guerras medicas e a ascensão política de Péricles. A presente tese se propõe a considerar o problema do método de atribuição a partir da obra de um só pintor, escolhido dentre aqueles que não foram diversas vezes reconsiderados e extensivamente justificados (a única monografia dedicada ao Pintor de Pistóxenos foi publicada nos anos 1950). A divergência estilística entre os fundos brancos e as figuras vermelhas do Pintor de Pistóxenos e a conservação fragmentaria da maioria de suas obras também colaboraram para a decisão de revisar esta serie de atribuições dentre tantas outras. / Since the first publication of the nickname Pistoxenos Painter, like identity of an artist whose hands had originated attic vase-paintings, a new classification of the series of vases and fragments was developed. This classification is still recognized like more precise than all other existing chronology or typologies. Almost all the specialists in Ancient Greek ceramology and iconography understood that while the denomination was a modern invention, the anonymous painter determined was a discovery. The author of this and hundreds of other attributions, the English Hellenist John D. Beazley (1885-1970), was doubtlessly the most important well-know connoisseur of all the History, what can be judged by the encyclopedic extension of his lists of painters and by the almost universal acceptance of his method of attribution\'s results. Criticisms and revisions of this method - initiated in XIX century, with the studies of Giovanni Morelli, an Italian doctor and connoisseur - are dated already of the first decades of XX century, but their development was discontinuous and discredited. A current interpretation of the revisionism considers it like an error and ignorance of the techniques developed by Morelli. The principal characteristic of the attacks against attributions of Beazley is perhaps the lack of importance given to the recognition of the vascular painters. Either by the proximity with the metal\'s art, or by the place that the pottery artists occupied in the Athenian society, chiefly between the end of the Persian wars and the political ascension of Perikles. This thesis proposes to considerate the problem of the method of attribution from only one painter\'s workmanship, chosen among the least published and not extensively justified (the only monograph dedicated to the Pistoxenos Painter was published in the years 1950). The stylistic divergence between the white-grounds and the red-figures of the Pistoxenos Painter, and the fragmentary conservation of the majority of his works had also collaborated for the decision to revise this particular series of attributions.
4

The Pistoxenos Painter, revisão crítica da atribuição de John Davidson Beazley / The Pistoxenos Painter, critical revision of the attribution of John Davidson Beazley

Pedro Luis Machado Sanches 23 April 2010 (has links)
Desde a primeira publicação da alcunha Pistóxenos Painter (Pintor de Pistóxenos), designando o artista cujas mãos originaram pinturas de um conjunto de vasos áticos, passou-se a dispor de uma nova classificação para este material. Tal classificação ainda e tida como muito mais precisa que qualquer cronologia ou tipologia existente. Quase a totalidade dos pesquisadores de ceramologia e iconografia gregas entenderam que enquanto a denominação foi uma invenção moderna, o pintor anônimo por ela determinado foi uma descoberta. O autor desta e de centenas de outras atribuições, o helenista inglês John D. Beazley (1885-1970), foi indubitavelmente o mais importante perito ou connaisseur de que se tem registro, a julgar pela extensão enciclopédica de suas listas de pintores e pela aceitação quase universal dos resultados de seu método de atribuir. Críticas e revisões deste método (surgente no século XIX, com os estudos do medico e perito Giovanni Morelli) são datadas já das primeiras décadas do século XX e tiveram uma historia descontinua e desprestigiada. Uma analise recorrente do revisionismo o atribui a falha de seus defensores e a ignorância das técnicas morellianas. Talvez a principal característica dos ataques dirigidos as atribuições de Beazley tenha sido a falta de importância atribuída ao reconhecimento de pintores vasculares. Seja pela proximidade com a arte do metal, seja pelo lugar que estes artistas ocupavam na sociedade ateniense, sobretudo entre o fim das guerras medicas e a ascensão política de Péricles. A presente tese se propõe a considerar o problema do método de atribuição a partir da obra de um só pintor, escolhido dentre aqueles que não foram diversas vezes reconsiderados e extensivamente justificados (a única monografia dedicada ao Pintor de Pistóxenos foi publicada nos anos 1950). A divergência estilística entre os fundos brancos e as figuras vermelhas do Pintor de Pistóxenos e a conservação fragmentaria da maioria de suas obras também colaboraram para a decisão de revisar esta serie de atribuições dentre tantas outras. / Since the first publication of the nickname Pistoxenos Painter, like identity of an artist whose hands had originated attic vase-paintings, a new classification of the series of vases and fragments was developed. This classification is still recognized like more precise than all other existing chronology or typologies. Almost all the specialists in Ancient Greek ceramology and iconography understood that while the denomination was a modern invention, the anonymous painter determined was a discovery. The author of this and hundreds of other attributions, the English Hellenist John D. Beazley (1885-1970), was doubtlessly the most important well-know connoisseur of all the History, what can be judged by the encyclopedic extension of his lists of painters and by the almost universal acceptance of his method of attribution\'s results. Criticisms and revisions of this method - initiated in XIX century, with the studies of Giovanni Morelli, an Italian doctor and connoisseur - are dated already of the first decades of XX century, but their development was discontinuous and discredited. A current interpretation of the revisionism considers it like an error and ignorance of the techniques developed by Morelli. The principal characteristic of the attacks against attributions of Beazley is perhaps the lack of importance given to the recognition of the vascular painters. Either by the proximity with the metal\'s art, or by the place that the pottery artists occupied in the Athenian society, chiefly between the end of the Persian wars and the political ascension of Perikles. This thesis proposes to considerate the problem of the method of attribution from only one painter\'s workmanship, chosen among the least published and not extensively justified (the only monograph dedicated to the Pistoxenos Painter was published in the years 1950). The stylistic divergence between the white-grounds and the red-figures of the Pistoxenos Painter, and the fragmentary conservation of the majority of his works had also collaborated for the decision to revise this particular series of attributions.

Page generated in 0.0333 seconds