Political/Social Change Photographers in Advertising Industry

[jtk]

<p>Example of DuChemin's insightful writing..and some useful links:<br>

<a href="http://www.lexar.com/dp/tips_lessons/duchemin_indecentexp.html">http://www.lexar.com/dp/tips_lessons/duchemin_indecentexp.html</a><br>

I must admit that I'm more interested in developing the perception and courage to deal with significant things in my own 2010 whitebread America...than I am in depicting colorful exotics in travel destinations. Consider Bill Owens "Suburbia" <a href="http://www.billowens.com/">http://www.billowens.com/</a></p>

 

[mizore]

<p>Flanigan, that wasn't Churchill. That was French Premier Georges Clemenceau (1841-1929), who had been a socialist in his youth. There's an even earlier version substituting "Republican" (meaning the French revolutionary sort) for "socialist," so Clemenceau was recycling.</p>

<p>Corporations are about making money. Both my father and a friend who was a bank VP said that their companies would do whatever they knew was legal to make money and if they had doubts, they'd do whatever and argue it out later with the Labor Relations Board or the federal regulators. Corporations have to be competitive. Corporations will, as Marx said, sell you the rope you're planning to use to hang them. They dynamic human organizations, not monolithic boogymen that academics who've avoided working for them think. I've worked as a writer for Rupert Murdoch, writing pro-egalitarian near anarchic science fiction. If it had sold better, I have no doubt that Murdoch would have happily published my next books (the book is still in print, just selling better as a Kindle product than as a dead trees product).</p>

<p>Corporate America happily published <em>Steal This Book</em> by Abbie Hoffman.</p>

<p>And I wish Greenpeace would write ad copy that didn't sound utterly contemptuous of their marks. I almost wanted to donate to whalers when I got mailing from them. I got the impression that they're just a bunch of rich kids wanting to ride around in Zodiacs being tough and having cool adventures at other people's expense.</p>

<p>Given that we don't have a species of sophont consistent with pure socialism, figure out how to live in the world with the species we are.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Rebbeca; Here I learned it was Churchill's quote back to the 1950's;<br /> <br /> one even has older variants to:; Clemenceau; Bismark; Lincoln; Guisot, Mark Twain, Tom Jefferson.<br /> <br /> One has another: "Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head.<br /> <br /> -- Francois Guisot (1787-1874)<br /> <br /> So maybe in a few years folks will say it is Obama; Palins; or Tiger Woods quotation; when it is another new variant ?<br /> I did not quoten Clemenceau; I quoted Churchill.<br /> <br /> Not to be a socialist at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head.<br /> <br /> -- Georges Clemenceau (1841-1929)<br /> <br /> Children today are tyrants They contradict their parents, gobble their food, and tyrannize their teachers.<br /> <br /> Socrates ( 470 - 399 B. C. )</p>

<p>Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows - David Wolf</p>

<p>There were probably idealistic young folks 10,000 years ago too; and the older to middle aged folks who are the evil chaps!</p>

[mizore]

<p>Churchilll would never have said it. He was always an imperialist. Clemenceau and Guisot seem to be the real sources, Clemenceau modifying the original. Clemenceau was a radical in his youth and part of the establishment in his old age. The original quote appears to be from Guizot, whose history is a little more ambiguous. Pity about your education.</p>

<p> </p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Rebecca; the Churchill quote is one from a published hardback book on famous quotes we had in the house 50 years ago. It was not some internet blog; but an actual textbook on quotes bought at the bookstore at the University of Illinois in Champaign Urbana. Thus the "education" is by reading an actual physical reference ; written when Eisenhower was President. Folks like you like to change history; like today maybe Churchill did not say this'; or maybe manufacturing is evil; or the earth is warming too? One has published books from 1/2 century ago that say it is a Churchill quote' one has published books 1/2 century ago about how to survive the bomb too. Strive to learn that what was written in books as fact 50 years ago may or may not be fact. I pity your lack of education too. </p>

[mizore]

<p>I'm a history major who studied at Columbia University. Your book was wrong. I've actually read Churchhill.</p>

[felixg]

<p>Kelly, Rebecca − please step back from the brink.<br>

Kelly: what are the author, title, publisher and publication date of the book?</p>

 

[dothesteve]

<p>Allen,<br>

As you are in SF and are interested in photography for social change, you need to check out http://www.fiftycrows.org/ . I don't know if any of the photographers associated with this group are in advertising, but you should be able to get some insight from them. </p>

<p>As for combining your ideals with your career, expect to compromise them occasionally in the advertising world, and don't mistake 'greenwashing' advertising for idealism. (An example of this would be an ad touting Megacorp's employee recycling program/planting 100 trees/installing solar panels to draw attention from their facilities' recently being named Superfund cleanup sites due to decades of chemical dumping.)</p>

<p>I would also warn you against accepting old chestnuts (see Churchill/Clemenceau/Who Cares quote above) as some kind of Sacred Word, simply because it's (a) old and (b) pithy. If you indeed have both a heart and a brain by the time you're 40, you'll realize that you can't live off your ideals, but the world can't live if you give them up on them. </p>

[mizore]

<p>Felix, I write books, I've been a journalist, and I'd buy Churchill making that statement about as much as I buy Clinton not inhaling.</p>

[felixg]

<p>Rebecca: so have I, so would I, but that's not the point. I was suggesting that you both step back from a public fight. We all sometimes get into a spat; I have myself − and then regretted it later. I always enjoy your serious and insightful posts; for that reason, I'd be sad to see you dragged into something else.<br>

I would be interested to see the details of the book in which this was attributed to Churchill, regardless of its accuracy. I look forward to Kelly giving me those details; then I can look at the paper trail and learn from it.</p>