WIX Archives
My attempt at an objective opinion
Posted by Chris K on Wed Sep 18, 2002 07:52:26 PM
In reply top Authenticity vs. Political Correctness posted by Ryan Keough on Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:00:26 PM
I honestly think this boils down to the following fundamental question:
"Should the Collins Foundation choose new, less controversial, markings for it's B-24J, or continue to display the aircraft with nude artwork that offends some people?"
I think most people are addressing the question, "Should people find the artwork offensive?".
Personally, I love the markings. However, it isn't really that surprising that some people would take offense to the artwork (at least in the US, I doubt it would even raise an eyebrow in most of Europe). This is near life-size artwork of a topless woman, plus the sexual ineuendo in the name. Again, I think it's awesome, but I'm not surprised that not everyone feels the same.
I think the Collings Foundation has to decide if the current markings live up to, or somehow inhibit, the stated goals and objectives of their organization. From their website, one of their objectives ".. to educate future generations about [the aircraft]".
I would really hate to think that some child will be DEPRIVED the opportunity to see this beautiful aircraft IN PERSON because their parents do not to expose him/her to the nudity. We may agree or disagree with the parents, but we have to respect that it is the parent's decision. I also do not believe that we should label and name call people who may have a "higher moral standard" than ourselves. Is it really so evil to not want your children to see a painting of a naked woman??
I do not believe that history will be "dis-seviced" by selecting new, historically accurate and significant nose art for the Liberator. There is a plethora of options. Optionally, I like the idea of a "magnet bikini" to cover up the lady when displayed publicly at airshows where children may be present.
But let's talk about the artwork for a second. This was artwork applied by young men in the pacific theatre during a war. I won't presume to know the aircrew's intentions, but I'd doubt they figured the artwork would be displayed to many young children at airshows across the country. Perhaps they would have chosen differently if they had known (maybe they wouldn't have, I don't know!). And where would we draw the line? During Vietnam there was a rather (in)famous F-105 adorned with "Pussy Galore" and it's corresponding X-rated nose art. Are we going to paint this on an airplane display it to America's children at airshows across the country? Some of you may not mind if your children saw this, but many would. Is that unreasonable?
I do think that stating that the current artwork will lead to deviant behaviour is pretty stupid, but I can say that when I was 12 or 13 years old I sure would have loved to have access to some art like that. :)
Let's go back to the original question. I don't think the Collings Foundation should let such controversy drag down the purpose they are trying to serve. I believe they place that purpose at more risk by choosing to knowingly offend people who find the public display of nude artwork unacceptable, than they would if they simply chose some less controversial, yet accurate and significant, artwork for the aircraft.
Chris K.