In today’s society, an image such as the one above may be offensive to some people, especially considering the fact that it appears prominently on the front of a government owned aircraft. But before judgment is passed on this situation, one should consider the circumstances under which it was painted.
During World War II the United States had air crews flying and maintaining different kinds of aircraft allover the world. The Pacific and Europe were the biggest theatres of operation, and the farther away from the various headquarters and main bases the racier the pictures got. But why were these pictures necessary, or even allowed for that matter? The simple fact is that these crews on average were very young with the average age being in the early twenties. These young men were away from home for very long periods of time, and came to miss families, girlfriends and wives, and other nostalgic memories of their homes. Anne Josephine Hayward, a member of the American Red Cross Aero Club in England and a painter of nose art, challenges current objections to nose art as degrading to women or others: "Its purpose was worthy, to bolster military morale in a terrible time. The members of each crew came to feel that their plane and their painting were somehow special and would bring them luck, a safe return from hostile skies. The art may have been frivolous at times, but it was never anti-social" (Source found here).
This may sound like an easy answer to explain away such behavior, but from personal experience I find it to be very accurate. When in a combat environment, no matter how well you’re trained or how confident you are in yourself or those around you, luck and fate are always there in your subconscious. These young men, especially the bomber pilots, were often in harms way. “8th Air Force Combat Losses in Europe was heavy. You had a higher percentage of being killed, wounded or captured while flying in the 8th AF than if you were in the infantry in the front line. Like all statistics, this fact is high when you compare the 8th AF losses against all personnel in the units that were considered "in combat." In actuality, it was even higher if you only count the front line regiment combat personnel and not the whole division. A US division was 16,000 or so personnel with only 3,600 being the front line infantry combat troops - all the others were support personnel." (Source can be found here.)
Because of statistics like this, more leeway was granted to these individuals for personalizing their aircraft. In a historical context, the 8th Air Force flew bombers mainly over European targets, especially Germany. Often times their losses were horrendous and friends and fellow airmen didn’t come back home. This of course didn’t have a good effect on morale. However, just the simple act of letting these men put this sort of art work on their planes gave them something else to be motivated about, to strive for, besides dwelling on the fact that they could be facing impending doom every time they took to the skies. The camaraderie that was built among air crews as they had friendly competitions over their nose art was also a much needed distraction during a time of awful endeavors.
So once again I say, don’t judge these individuals as being sexist or anything of the like. Perhaps some were, but when you get right down to brass tacks, this simple expression of art, these reminders of home and of what was waiting, is what helped get these brave men through what may be one of the most trying times in our history. Go art!
9 comments:
Mr. Mohar - first off, thanks for your service to our country. I really like this subject area - it reminds me of the time I was fortunate to see the original "Memphis Belle" at Sikorsky Airport in Connecticut as a kid. I appreciate you providing information from one of the artists of the nose art but would have welcomed some information to back up your thread that people find this art offensive. Who has said that? Is it coming from the non-armed services communities? It would be helpful to the reader to see both sides of the argument. All in all, a very original topic.
Good point, Will! It would've been very helpful to know who exactly is against these images.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Ben, but it seems like you are anticipating a feminist argument without fully articulating what feminist concerns are about women, exploitation, objectification and what is termed "the gaze." A feminist reading of these images wouldn't necessarily condemn them, either!
What a unique subject for a post - not too many blogs out there about WWII Nose Art! I was hoping to find out a little more about the images and artwork itself, and I definitely would like to hear more about the personal experience that you allude to in this post.
Benjamin-
What an interesting topic. I appreciate your personal experiences and thoughts.
You mention opposition to this art, but do not get into any discussion of these opposing views. Including the arguments of the opposition could make your own argument stronger. First, it would make for a bit of drama. Who doesn't love to observe a little brawl? Second, as a reader, I want to know what you are responding to in your entry.
That aside, your entry is compelling. The idea of art as bringing luck, being used as a talisman, seems to be ignored in our culture. I think you could take this idea further and write a very interesting paper.
Benjamin: this piece was very insightful. It makes me wonder: did the soldiers in WW2 want to personalize potential items of destruction out of fear and lonliness? Did they want to make unpredictable and scary situations more personable and manageable by painting this type of decor? What else did soliders in WW2 do to personalize their war experience?
I think your perspective on the issue of sexism is likewise interesting and informed: your perspective on the issue makes you question whether the art is sexist at all - it seems designed more to give a sense of comfort and comraderie. Good work!
Benjamin,
First off, I love WWII-era art, I think it's absolutely fantastic and a really awesome topic to discuss.
I also found your thoughts interesting, but I agree with a lot of the other comments in that the discussion could definitely be improved with the inclusion of some of the opposing opinions.
I also think your piece could benefit from a closer look at the art itself-- what symbolism, etc. is hidden in the paintings, aside from the obvious?
I thought this was an incredibly interesting subject- and appreciated your extensive attention to the historical context behind the existence of this type of art. You presented a well-detailed background for the purpose of nose art, and the effect it was intended to have on the airmen.
I would have been interested to see some further exploration of the individual paintings themselves, since many of the works (and the planes they were painted on) have very unique histories
A good overall synopsis of this artform from a historical and visual perspective. As to the topic of feminism, in this case I would say it is acceptable to "anticipate" feminist opposition, as it would be foolish to ignore it. Females dressed seductively, no matter when or why it was done, is sure to "stir the pot" with certain groups. Considering this artform was heavily influenced by the military, the use of candor is very fitting throughout the written piece. After all, most the artists, if not all of them, were male, and they were not considering female reaction to the art. These were soldiers, sailors and airmen who may not have lived to see the next week, much less how the pieces might stand in an art history critique decades down the road. Whether they were being masaginistic or not was not a consideration at the time. The pieces were created in esprit de corp with the breath of reminiscence, and the subject matter included what was important to them as a group: beautiful females. The age of the group also makes the subject matter relevant. Most men were either newlyweds or planning to marry if they ever made it home alive, and it was probably on their minds continuously. The view of the male is dominating, and visible at first glance, and in effect, bound to find some opposition. So I think it was with good intuition Mr. Mohar included it rather than ignored. A risk that paid off Mr. Mohar, props!
I would like to thank everybody in earnest for their comments, as they were all very supportive and constructive criticism is always welcome. As many of you alluded to there are several subjects which could have been expanded upon, but had I followed them as much as I would have liked to the post would have simply gone on forever and unfortunately the line had to be drawn somewhere.
As for my personal experience, many of our vehicles had our own little mascots, traditions, and decorations, though not as obvious of those on the aircraft as we were on the ground and tried to keep vehicles indistinct as viewed by the enemy. For example, a tradition in our truck was to play a certain order of songs as we left the wire, sort of a good luck ritual. Our truck also always had Hot Cheetos and Monster energy drinks, no matter where we went. Being as it was the convoy commander's vehicle, these were rituals not to be messed with as we held ourselves responsible for the entire convoy.
Post a Comment