Lots of people who know Versace only for its pulse-racing eveningwear were left bemused when Julia Roberts arrived in Venice—where she is promoting Luca Guadagnino’s After The Hunt—wearing the first design to be revealed publicly under Dario Vitale’s creative directorship: a wool jacket, striped shirting, and straight-legged denim with pumps. The response from some online was “How is this Versace?”—a comment that proliferated further when Roberts later wore a crepe-de-chine gown on the red carpet, with few recognizing its harlequin motifs as a reference to Gianni Versace’s fall winter 1986 collection.
I’m inclined to side with Vitale’s equally vocal supporters: Roberts looked “fab, actually.” (Power, seduction and everything else Versace stands for can be communicated in other ways besides a safety-pin dress). Amanda Seyfried was also persuaded. She asked Elizabeth Stewart—the stylist both she and Roberts work with—in a comment on Instagram: “Please let me wear the same outfit.” And since we no longer live under the malign rule of Who Wore It Best columns, the actor duly borrowed the exact look for a photocall for The Testament of Ann Lee less than 48 hours later. More sustainable, surely, than getting Versace to, again, remake one of its more legibly on-brand looks from the ’90s and ’00s.
Photo: Getty Images
Photo: Getty Images
As for how clearly these Julia Roberts et Amanda Seyfried dual looks represent Vitale’s vision for Versace, that remains to be seen. What it does demonstrate, however, is the red carpet’s increasing function as a launchpad for newly appointed creative directors to tease at their direction. If the Cannes Film Festival offered a glimpse of Louise Trotter’s Bottega Veneta via Julianne Moore and Vicky Krieps, Venice has provided hints by way of Alba Rohrwacher in Jonathan Anderson’s Dior, Cate Blanchett in Glenn Martens’s Maison Margiela, and Jacob Elordi in Trotter’s Bottega. While this soft-launch approach makes sense in a year crowded with debuts, it serves more as a statement of a label’s new era under a new designer than a creative manifesto. The question, then, is not, “How is this Versace?” but rather, “Could this be Versace?”
The ESC’s revised guidelines establish a simplified care pathway for all severe aortic stenosis (AS) patients, regardless of symptoms. Image credit: hydebrink via Shutterstock.com.
The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) has updated its care guidelines for valvular heart disease, due in large part to recent trial results from Edwards Lifesciences.
Announced at the ESC Congress 2025, taking place in Madrid, Spain, from 29 August to 1 September, the updated guidelines now recommend that transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) be considered, even for asymptomatic patients, marking a shift from the previous “watchful waiting” advisement.
Discover B2B Marketing That Performs
Combine business intelligence and editorial excellence to reach engaged professionals across 36 leading media platforms.
Find out more
The amended guidelines were largely informed by data from Edwards’ EARLY TAVR trial (NCT03042104). Edwards is currently the only company with an approved TAVR indication in the US and Europe for asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS).
Edwards’ CEO Bernard Zovighian called the ESC’s updated guidelines “important advancements” for structural heart disease patients.
The ESC’s guidelines are also updated to reduce the TAVR age threshold to 70, down from 75 and above, claimed by Edwards to reflect the strong confidence in TAVR’s “long-term safety, efficacy and durability”.
Zovighian commented: “Consistent with our strategy, the combination of new clinical evidence, indication expansions and guideline changes enables improved clinical outcomes, expanded patient access and overall benefits to the healthcare system.”
First published in the New England Journal of Medicine in October 2024, Edwards’ EARLY TAVR trial demonstrated that asymptomatic severe AS patients randomised to the company’s TAVR experienced superior outcomes versus the prior guideline-recommended approach of clinical surveillance (watchful waiting).
Involving 24,000 patients with severe AS, Edwards’ trial demonstrated that prompt intervention resulted in an average of 2.2 fewer days spent in hospitals during patients’ treatment, 80% fewer heart failure hospitalisations one year after treatment, and cost reductions of $36,000 per patient after one year.
At a median follow-up of 3.8 years, data showed that 26.8% of the 455 patients in the trial’s TAVR arm experienced death, stroke or unplanned cardiovascular hospitalisation versus 45.3% of the 446 patients in the clinical surveillance arm.
According to GlobalData analysis, the global TAVR market is growing at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 8.1% and is forecast to reach a valuation of $14.9bn by 2034, up from $6.8bn in 2024. Edwards currently holds global and US market shares of 61% and 75.1%, respectively, as per a GlobalData market model.
While Edwards dominates the TAVR market for now, Medtronic is on the rise. The rival medtech company recently released two-year results from its SMART trial [NCT04722250] that compared its Evolut TAVR system to Edwards’ SAPIEN. The data revealed that Evolut led to significantly less bioprosthetic valve dysfunction, five times less prosthetic valve thrombosis, and nine times less haemodynamic structural valve dysfunction than the SAPIEN system.
According to GlobalData analysis, the Evolut system could become the preferred option among healthcare professionals for patients with symptomatic severe AS and small aortic annulus categories, as evaluated in the trial.
Sign up for our daily news round-up!
Give your business an edge with our leading industry insights.
Medical Device Network Excellence Awards – The Benefits of Entering
Gain the recognition you deserve! The Medical Device Network Excellence Awards celebrate innovation, leadership, and impact. By entering, you showcase your achievements, elevate your industry profile, and position yourself among top leaders driving medical devices advancements. Don’t miss your chance to stand out—submit your entry today!
When the final whistle went in York to confirm South Africa’s victory over Italy on Sunday, it sparked mass singing and dancing across the field. The Springbok Women have booked a place in a Women’s Rugby World Cup quarter-final for the first time in history, so the cause for celebration was there – but it’s not just in victory that these women sing.
Gwijo is an ancient form of South African cultural expression still seen today. Originally a ritual where Xhosa warriors would sing together to gather strength and calm nerves before a battle, it follows the men’s and women’s national teams across the globe and has been a regular feature at England 2025.
Former player and current assistant coach Laurian Johannes-Haupt knows exactly what it’s like to experience Gwijo, and sees its benefits first-hand.
“They chant, they dance, they sing, they’re just happy people,” she said of the players.
“Happy people are confident people and confidence on the field is massive. It’s really special because when I was a player that’s what we did.
“We sang to generate energy from each other, and going onto the field we’d carry that with us. Whether that’s to a training session or to a match, we do that to feel united and ready to go to war.”
Gwijo singing is a message unison and hope. Nombuyekezo Mdliki is one of the leaders of the singing within the squad and has around 20 different Gwijo songs in her repertoire.
“It helps to deal with nerves, not to focus on the game that’s coming,” she said. “It doesn’t allow you to think about all the surroundings, all the things that are going to stress you.
“Gwijo is something to distract your mind. It uplifts your confidence.”
Songs can range from loud and motivating, to quieter and more concentrated melodies. Mdliki says her choices depend on the environment and mood.
“If we are down, we will sing a song that will uplift our souls, and if we are celebrating, we sing one that’s for celebrating,” she said.
“If there’s an event, we’ll sing one that goes with that event because they are different categories.
“We don’t really sing loud ones when we are in the changing rooms, we sing ones with prayers because we are praying for the win. Praying to do well. So it’s not really loud, it’s polite.”
Ultimately, the ritual relaxes players and allows them to play their best rugby. But more than that, it fosters a family environment within the squads and brings players together unlike any other team.
“It’s about the culture. It’s about uniting ourselves,” she said.
President Donald Trump slammed U.S.-India trade as a “totally one sided disaster” on Monday morning, hours after Prime Minister Narendra Modi met with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping in what looked to be a unified front at a summit in eastern China.
Trump slammed the United States’ trade relationship with India as a “totally one sided disaster” in a post on Truth Social. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
Getty Images
Key Facts
Trump, in a Truth Social post, said the United States sells little to India but India sells the United States “massive amounts of goods, their biggest ‘client,’” slamming what he portrays as a lopsided trade relationship “for many decades.”
Trump alleged the “reason is that India has charged us, until now, such high Tariffs, the most of any country, that our businesses are unable to sell into India,” claiming the country has since offered to cut tariffs on U.S. goods to “nothing.”
Reuters reported the U.S. had a $45.8 billion trade deficit with India in 2024, and that India’s average tariff rate on U.S. goods is 7.5%, citing India’s trade ministry, though the U.S. Trade Representative’s office told Reuters India’s tariff rate on U.S. auto imports is 100% and farm goods is 39%.
Trump also criticized India for buying Russian oil and military goods, weeks after he signed an executive order hiking tariffs on India for importing Russian oil, which he said “undermines U.S. efforts to counter Russia’s harmful activities” in Ukraine.
The United States’ 50% tariff rate on goods from India took effect on Wednesday, which India has slammed as “unfair, unjustified and unreasonable.”
Russian President Vladimir Putin, Chinese President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi met Monday in Tianjin, China. (Photo by Sergey Bobylev/Kremlin Press S./Anadolu via Getty Images)
Anadolu via Getty Images
What Happened At The China-Russia-India Summit?
Xi, Putin and Modi met in Tianjin, China, on Monday as China hosted the leaders of more than two dozen countries, putting on what looked like a unified front in a move some analysts called was a pointed message to the United States, particularly by India, which has been frustrated by tariff negotiations with the U.S. The leaders were seen shaking hands, embracing and laughing with one another, and Putin, who took a backseat limo ride with Modi, referred to the Indian leader as his “dear friend.” Modi posted a picture of his limo ride with Putin on his social media accounts, stating “conversations with him are always insightful.” Xi, in a speech at the summit, urged leaders to oppose “Cold War mentality, bloc confrontation and bullying” in likely shots at the United States, the New York Times reported. Putin, in a speech, said “understandings” reached with the United States at their Alaska summit in August could pave a way for peace between Russia and Ukraine, but blamed the West for the war over its “constant attempts to drag Ukraine into NATO.” The summit was Modi’s first trip to China in seven years, and the leaders of Asia’s largest countries agreed they are development partners, not rivals, and to not let their disputed border in the Himalayas “define the overall China-India relationship.”
How Have Analysts Interpreted The China-Russia-India Summit?
Keir Giles, a senior fellow at London think tank Chatham House, told NBC News the summit showed the “close relationship that Trump sought with Putin is now on display between Putin and others,” noting the United States gave India “a real cause to look for friendship and partnership elsewhere.” Manoj Kewalramani, who heads Indo-Pacific studies at Bangalore, India’s Takshashila Institution, told the New York Times optics are a key part of the summit and that U.S. policies “will result in other countries looking for alternatives to meet their interests.”
Further Reading
Smiles and Clasped Hands as Xi, Putin and Modi Try to Signal Unity (New York Times)
Trump Doubles India Tariffs To 50% In Retaliation For Russian Oil Purchases (Forbes)
Raise a pint to another sibling brawl after Succession, as the four adult children of patriarch Sir Benjamin Guinness battle for their place in the family dynasty after the brewery mogul’s death in 1868.
The teaser for the historical Netflix drama set in 19th-century New York and Dublin and from Peaky Blinders creator Steven Knight sees the moneyed family heirs — Arthur, Edward, Anne and Ben — left doubly grief-stricken by the impact of their father’s will.
Benjamin Guinness, played by Fionn O’Shea, and sister Anne Plunket Guinness (Emily Fairn) are denied an inheritance. That ushers in a toxic family feud as the two eldest sons — Anthony Boyle, who plays Arthur Guinness, and Louis Partridge as Edward Guinness — are given stewardship of the Irish brewery and its black gold.
“The death of your father has served to poke a stick in a hornet’s nest,” Arthur Guinness is told at one point in the trailer as the family drama plays out against the backdrop of the fight for Irish independence and other generational struggles.
The ensemble cast for the Netflix series to bow on Sept. 25 includes Dervla Kirwan (True Detective: Night Country), Jack Gleeson (Game of Thrones), Niamh McCormack (Everything Now), Danielle Galligan (Shadow and Bone), Ann Skelly (The Nevers), Seamus O’Hara (Blue Lights), Michael McElhatton (Game of Thrones), David Wilmot (Station Eleven), Michael Colgan (Say Nothing), Jessica Reynolds (Kneecap), Hilda Fay (The Woman in the Wall) and Elizabeth Dulau (Andor).
House of Guinness.
Courtesy of Netflix
The Kudos and Nebulastar series will debut with eight one-hour episodes, from creator and writer Knight, who also executive produces along with Karen Wilson, Elinor Day, Martin Haines, Tom Shankland and Ivana Lowell.
A new wearable, noninvasive brain-computer interface (BCI) system that uses artificial intelligence has been designed to help people with physical disabilities.
The University of California, Los Angeles, developed this new BCI where an AI acts as a “co-pilot.” It works alongside users to understand their intentions and help control a robotic arm or computer cursor.
The system can potentially create new technologies to improve how people with limited mobility, like those with paralysis or neurological conditions, handle objects.
“By using artificial intelligence to complement brain-computer interface systems, we’re aiming for much less risky and invasive avenues,” said Jonathan Kao, study leader and an associate professor of electrical and computer engineering at the UCLA Samueli School of Engineering.
“Ultimately, we want to develop AI-BCI systems that offer shared autonomy, allowing people with movement disorders, such as paralysis or ALS, to regain some independence for everyday tasks,” Kao added.
Interpreting the user’s intent
Until now, the most advanced BCI devices required risky and costly neurosurgery. The advantages of the technology were often outweighed by how invasive the procedure was.
Wearable BCIs, while safer, often lacked the reliability needed for practical application.
This new system pairs an electroencephalography (EEG) cap with a camera-based AI platform, which records brain activity.
The team developed special algorithms to decode brain signals from an EEG cap.
A camera-based AI platform then takes over, interpreting the user’s intent in real time to guide actions such as moving a computer cursor or a robotic arm.
The trials were conducted on a group of four participants, which included three individuals without motor impairments as well as one who was paralyzed.
Faster completion of the task
In a test with two tasks — moving a cursor to eight targets and using a robotic arm to move four blocks — all participants finished much faster with AI assistance.
The paralyzed participant was a key example; he could complete the robotic arm task in roughly six and a half minutes with the AI’s help, a task he couldn’t do on his own.
“Next steps for AI-BCI systems could include the development of more advanced co-pilots that move robotic arms with more speed and precision, and offer a deft touch that adapts to the object the user wants to grasp,” said co-lead author Johannes Lee, a UCLA electrical and computer engineering doctoral candidate advised by Kao.
“And adding larger training data could also help the AI collaborate on more complex tasks and improve EEG decoding itself,” Lee added in the press release.
This system sets a new standard for noninvasive BCI performance.
It holds potential for individuals facing paralysis or neurological conditions, offering a path to regaining independence in daily tasks.
In recent years, the advancement of the brain-computer interface system has been happening rapidly.
Recently, an investigational brain-computer interface system developed by the University of California, Davis, has allowed a patient with ALS to communicate in real time. This technology is designed to enable faster, more natural conversation for those with the neurological disease, which causes a loss of muscle control.
The new findings were published in the journal Nature Machine Intelligence.
Vejle, Denmark — Rhombico Games announces today the release of Consumption Line, a free experimental indie game available on Steam. Designed as a tightly scoped, 30 minute long experience, “Consumption Line” places players on a soup assembly line where daily routines gradually unravel into a commentary on food systems, advertising, and capitalism.
At its core, the game is simple: operate two machines (one for broth, one for noodles), meet your quota, and go home. But as days pass, ingredients change and machines accelerate. The familiar shifts into the uncanny.
“Games have a massive advantage over other forms of media,” said Federico Casares, founder of Rhombico Games. “When you watch a film or read a book, you can always say the character made the choice. In a game, you made the choice. That’s why I believe games are fantastic conversation starters, and tools for reflection and empathy. With Consumption Line, I wanted to explore how through repetition and subtle changes we can make players reflect about some of the aspects of modern life.”
Consumption Line is 100% free, ad-free, microtransaction-free, and playable in one sitting.
Would-be car buyers considering ditching petrol for electric tend to fret – not always correctly – about higher upfront costs, access to chargers and whether their battery will last on long journeys.
But Keir Starmer has an unusual obstacle to making the switch – Britain’s largest carmaker has claimed electric vehicles (EVs) do not offer adequate bomb protection.
The prime minister’s armoured Range Rover Sentinels will need to remain as petrol versions for the foreseeable future, according to their manufacturer, JLR.
The maker of Jaguar and Land Rover cars addressed the issue in written responses to a government consultation on EV sales rules. The documents – obtained by Fast Charge, a newsletter covering electric cars, and shared with the Guardian – detailed how JLR and other carmakers lobbied the UK government to weaken targets requiring them to sell more EVs each year.
JLR said armoured cars should be excluded from the targets, known as the zero emission vehicle mandate, because it “does not see any workable engineering solution to the challenges surrounding an armoured BEV [battery EV], primarily because the required safety levels and blast protection cannot be achieved”.
Armoured vehicles are a small but very profitable business for carmakers. They usually have bulletproof glass, armour plating, and “bomb blankets” under the floor, adding hundreds of kilograms of weight to already heavy cars.
It is unclear what specific vulnerabilities JLR sees in armoured electric cars, although potential issues could include the reduction in range from the extra weight and the time needed to recharge.
However, its German rival BMW does not appear to share those worries: its electric i7 Protection saloon offers “special armouring” in the floor and ceiling to protect against explosives on the ground and those carried by drones.
JLR said the UK government was the main customer in Britain for its armoured vehicles. The vehicles are built at the company’s site at Solihull, in the West Midlands, and then converted by its special vehicle operations department.
Precise specifications of Starmer’s fleet of Range Rover Sentinels are not public to avoid aiding potential attackers, but they are understood to have 5-litre V8 engines, designed to allow the heavy car to speed off if threatened.
The prime ministerial fleet also includes non-electric, German-made, armoured Audi A8 saloon cars, which replaced the Jaguar XJ after that model was discontinued.
skip past newsletter promotion
after newsletter promotion
Tom Riley, the author of the Fast Charge newsletter, said: “This is the first time I’ve come across ‘blast anxiety’ as an excuse not to switch. Clearly, it’s a valid concern, but it does mean the prime minister could be the last Brit to go electric.”
For motorists who do not need to worry about bomb attacks, overall lifetime costs for electric cars are significantly lower on average, while “range anxiety” should not be a problem for those who rarely make journeys longer than 200 miles and live in places where charging facilities are increasingly common, such as the UK, western Europe or parts of the US.
The U.K. government’s announcement to absorb the nation’s 15-year-old space agency into a recently established government department may sound shocking to some, but it came as no surprise to insiders. Still, some industry experts fear the move may harm the U.K.’s space ambitions and weaken its position within the European Space Agency, to which Britain allocates most of its civilian space budget.
The UK Space Agency (UKSA), formed in 2010 with the goal of propelling the country’s space and satellite sector into the new space age, will be absorbed by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) by April.
The UK government announced the decision Aug. 20, saying the move would “cut duplication and ensure decisions are made with clear ministerial oversight.” UKSA will effectively become a department within DSIT, which had been providing all of the agency’s funding since 2023. The merger has been widely seen as part of the Labour government’s initiative to cut government expenditure and civil service costs by 15% by the end of the decade.
Related: Trump’s 2026 budget would slash NASA funding by 24% and its workforce by nearly one-third
But insiders who discussed the situation with Space.com said questions around UKSA’s merit had been heard in government circles since around 2020.
“It was around COVID when the [Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, or BEIS] responsible for UKSA at that time started making an argument that the space agency had become isolated and no longer understood the needs for space across all other government departments,” a source who had worked at UKSA during the first decade of its existence told Space.com under the condition of anonymity. “It was perceived that the agency had become a bit of a show pony, a cheerleader for the concept of space rather than thinking about what do we actually need from space for environment, transport, defense etc.”
The U.K. has had a different approach to space than its European counterparts, such as Germany, France and Italy, the source explained. Historically, the U.K. has dedicated most of its resources to the European Space Agency (ESA) rather than pursuing a multipronged approach involving a strong domestic space program and bilateral partnerships independent of ESA.
Breaking space news, the latest updates on rocket launches, skywatching events and more!
Therefore, over 80% of UKSA’s budget has been placed into ESA. The perception in the government was that UKSA was acting more in line with ESA’s wishes than with the U.K. government’s needs, the source added.
“The government started to argue that the policy team in UKSA was too narrow and too focused on what ESA wanted,” they told Space.com. “It was too focused on not questioning where ESA wanted to go as an organization and was largely driven by the forward vision of ESA.”
ESA is an intergovernmental institution independent of the European Union, which the U.K. exited in January 2020. Currently consisting of 23 member states, ESA has a special status that sets it apart from other major space agencies, including NASA.
The logo for the new UK Space Agency launched by the United Kingdom on March 23, 2010. (Image credit: UK Space Agency)
As an intergovernmental entity, ESA stands outside any governmental control and is protected by diplomatic immunity. The agency, plagued by reports of bullying and labor law breaches, has long been criticized for lacking transparency because it is not bound by any freedom-of-information laws. The U.K., represented by UKSA, is ESA’s fourth-largest budget contributor after Germany, France and Italy.
The U.K. government began taking steps to gain more control over its space investments into ESA following the publication of a Space Landscape Review commissioned in 2021. The review recommended that the U.K. government take the development of the national space strategy away from UKSA and move it to DSIT’s predecessor, BEIS, thus reducing UKSA to an execution body.
A subsequent report by the National Audit Office published in 2024 found inefficiencies in the new setup and persistent shortcomings on the side of UKSA, including inadequate monitoring and evaluation of project progress. The review also found that UKSA failed to secure a full return on its investment into ESA. The decision to absorb all of UKSA into DSIT is seen as a consequence of that review and has been preceded by transfers of key staff from UKSA to the space department within DSIT.
“It’s an expected move,” another source who had previously worked at UKSA and also spoke under the condition of anonymity, told Space.com. “We’ve known it’s been coming for a while.”
The sources said it makes sense to bring together various government stakeholders who are responsible for the space agenda. The move comes at a time when the U.K., like other European nations, is becoming increasingly aware of the need to build up its space-based defense capabilities. However, UKSA has been responsible only for civilian space applications and science exploration.
“Currently, in the UK, it’s all very disjointed,” the source said. “You have to talk to lots of different people and different government interfaces.”
“I don’t think it’s a bad thing because DSIT is the department that is giving the space agency all its money anyway,” the other source added. “The space agency will maintain its brand but will be reporting to the head of DSIT and not asking money directly from the government.”
Some question the decision, however, especially as it’s been announced three months before an upcoming meeting of the ESA Council of Ministers, which will decide the agency’s funding for the next three years. The danger of weakening the U.K.’s position within ESA has been cited by multiple sources as the main argument against the merger with DSIT.
“It’s hard to see how it will work in practice and how will our international partners know how to interact with the U.K.,” the source said. “The jury is out whether this could be the right solution. I think that for the next 12 months, things might slow down, and priorities might become less clear as there will be lots of changes on the inside of the government.”
British astronaut Tim Peake was the first British crewmember of the International Space Station when he launched in 2015. He represented the UK and European space agencies. (Image credit: UK Space Agency)
Other sources who have connections to the U.K. space sector but were not familiar with the inside situation at UKSA questioned the move on the basis that all nations aspiring to be serious space players have dedicated space agencies. France and Germany, the two largest ESA contributors, have dedicated space agencies — CNES and DLR, respectively — which manage their own complex space programs and oversee major developments, including the European Ariane rocket family.
“When UKSA was created in 2010, everyone was excited that finally the U.K. was getting an executive agency that would have power to shape U.K. space policy and strategy,” one source told Space.com. “In France and Germany, CNES and DLR drove the development of strong space industries, largely via ESA projects, and the U.K. wanted to emulate that success. So, what has changed now?”
Another source said, “An independent executive space agency was considered an important part of a more ambitious space commitment by Britain [prior to 2010].”
Prior to UKSA, the British National Space Centre (BNSC) was responsible for the U.K. space program, which consisted of experts from a range of government departments. But because the BNSC lacked an independent budget, its negotiations with ESA were cumbersome and its powers to foster the domestic industry were limited. Some see the absorption of UKSA into DSIT as a return to the BNSC model of doing things, which they think will come with the same range of problems.
The U.K. National Space Strategy, published in 2021 by the Conservative government led by Boris Johnson, outlined ambitious goals for the U.K. space sector. It includes a vision of the U.K. becoming Europe’s leading provider of satellite launch services as well as a dominant manufacturer of small satellites.
In the 15 years of its existence, UKSA has overseen a period of strong growth in the U.K. space industry. The “Size and Health of the UK Space Industry report,” published in 2025, states that the U.K. space sector has grown by over 3.3% per year since 2010 and currently employs over 55,500 full-time employees and provides a further 81,000 indirect jobs.
From identity to landscape, a new collection of images by 40 photographers captures revelatory moments in time on both sides of the ditch
Main image:
Individuation, 2024–2025. From the Acceptance series. Michael Cook is an Australian photographic artist of Bidjara (south-western Queensland) heritage. Much of Cook’s work interrogates alternative histories, imagining a scenario in which Indigenous people make up most of the Australian population and non-Indigenous Australians are in the minority.
