I found these pictures on the "Shock and Awe" part of the military.com website's entertainment section. All the nose art pictures are submitted by individuals in the military.
While some of the these nose art images are a throwback to World War II nose art of pinup girls and Uncle Sam, I think it is interesting that this style of art is still employed. And in addition to updated images of scantly clad women (often posed on a phallic looking warhead) current nose art shows updates in "patriotic" images (often including the WTC on 9/11) and often appropriates non-violent images for obviously violent purposes.
Here's how the purpose of nose art is defined (from wikipedia)
While begun for practical reasons of identifying friend from foe, the practise evolved, with benefits to morale, in expressing pride, relieving the uniform anonymity of the military, offering comfort by recalling home or peacetime life, and as a kind of fetish against enemy action. The appeal, in part, came from nose art not being officially approved, even when the regulations were not rigorously enforced (or at all).
Nose art would be a great way to start a class discussion on gender and war and on the kind of unwelcoming environment the American military continues to be for women in the service. And what do these images say about how the military perceives its enemies, and how power and dominance is defined (as gendered, ethnicized etc.)?
[See also images from this post on perceptions of military power.]
13 comments:
April 6, 2008 at 11:02 AM
It's interesting to consider as well how (if at all) the Iraqis view these in their country, considering their conceptions of modesty.
April 6, 2008 at 11:45 AM
hey, i've found your weblog quite recently and i really like it - i linked it to my weblog. i was wondering though, about your ongoing concern with advertising using women's struggle for the purpose of selling stuff. i am very critical of advertising myself, and i believe it to be a totally superfluous phenomenon, but the fact is that advertising's purpose IS to SELL stuff, by using anything that will grab attention of the imagined target group. so some ads will use family values (as is the case in Poland, where i'm from), others will use feminist movement. recently i saw an add where god and the angels praise a super-whitening washing powder. should religious people object to this commodification of religious symbols? honestly, i don't think it reflects anything but the willingness to sell.
i am more disturbed by the images glamourising violence, such as the puff daddy perfume (or whatever his name is right now).
and, in general, i am very very much impressed by what you are doing here :)
April 6, 2008 at 12:24 PM
"Phallic looking warhead"? Basic physics dictates the shape of a warhead, just as it dictates the shape of a rocket (ie aerodynamic drag). If you're seeing a penis in a missile, the problem is with you, not the weapons designers.
April 6, 2008 at 1:32 PM
@ed
There isn't something phallic about a sexy woman straddling a huge warhead between her legs? Really? It isn't just the shape of the warhead I'm talking about, it is the way it is being pictured that makes it phallic.
I mean, come on, don't you remember the final scene in Dr Strangelove?
April 6, 2008 at 2:54 PM
Dominika-
I certainly can't speak for the author of this site, or anyone else for that matter, but I know for me it's less a matter of being angry at the ads themselves and more a matter of trying to understand how we have come to live in a society where it is acceptable to objectify and commodify women's bodies - in advertising as well as in real-life situations.
April 6, 2008 at 3:50 PM
pkdk-
I think to a large degree, here in the U.S., we commodify men's bodies too. Objectify too. Consider ads for "Bod" body spray, or even the old Marlboro ads. That cowboy wasn't being portrayed as a valuable individual or anything, but as an object of desire. In that case, not sexual desire, but a wish fulfillment for pale, flabby office workers. I don't deny that female objectification is rampant, but advertising does it to everyone and everything to one degree or another.
April 6, 2008 at 4:20 PM
Wendy,
It isn't just the shape of the warhead I'm talking about, it is the way it is being pictured that makes it phallic.
That may be what you intended to say, but what you wrote
often posed on a phallic looking warhead
Implies that all warheads are phallic symbols.
Precision is all.
April 6, 2008 at 5:14 PM
Brian:
if you're going to complain about precision -- the phrase "a phallic looking warhead" does not, as you say, imply that all warheads are by nature phallic symbols. As another commentator suggested, missile shape is mainly a function of aerodynamic drag. In the English language, the indefinite article refers to a particular member of a set; in this case the single warhead under discussion. In the full context however, it's clear that Wendy is referring to more than just one warhead. She's referring to the *depictions* of said warheads on this nose art, which I personally can't imagine anything much more evocative of phallic imagery than a woman riding a giant penis-shaped object for no other apparent reason.
April 6, 2008 at 6:17 PM
Unfortunately these images are not that offensive to me. In the late 1990s I was working for a vanity press that published an airforce WWII memoir and the images on those planes were way more offensive, practically pornographic. Living in the 1990s I could not believe that those images were from the 1940s. Needless to say, I passed on being the publicist for that book out of principal. Luckily I was working with two other people that were less offended. If I find them I will send them to you.
April 7, 2008 at 4:47 AM
Yeay for arguing about phrasing. Way to see the forest for all the trees in the way.
I'd like to know where the images come from. One looks to be off of a motorcycle sidecar. I'm not up on my military spending but I didn't think we were using those in our current modern armed forces.
While I am personally sickened by using 911 imagery to justify a war, you do have to admit it is more inclusive and less likely to marginalize then a woman with a "rocket" between her legs.
April 7, 2008 at 8:28 AM
@ Mike - I yield to your verbosity.
@ Rich - if you click the link for military.com, then find the 'nose art' section then _then_ click the picture in question it contains a caption for each.
These may or may not be informative. 'Weapons Free' is from a CH-53E, the Marine is Sgt. Matt Forsstrom. Liberator is not identified but I am pretty certain that it's a replica or refurb from WW II.
April 8, 2008 at 12:33 AM
I have to admit that I sort of love this stuff. After all, I do have a Memphis Belle tattoo.
And while the figure in the second image is sitting on a torpedo, at least she is "sitting like a lady."
Tee hee!
April 8, 2008 at 7:03 PM
The "Symphony of Destruction" noseart comes from a same titled song critical of war and abuses of power. The character depicted directing this symphony has served as a mascot for Megadeth, the musical group responsible.
Post a Comment