Aircraft Nose Art: American, French and British Imagery and Its Influences… (2016)

Very disappointed in this. I was expecting the book would explore nose art ie. pictures and identifying the unit of the service that used that plane or perhaps the stories of the service people who used the planes or just fantastic photographs. This is not that book. This is more of a social history explaining the fashion, music, and current events that may have influenced plane designs from WWI to current conflicts. While I appreciate that what generally may have influenced them, I was expecting to hear what specifically influenced each plane design.

II was also disturbed by the particular bent of the artist. The book seemed to be written by someone coming from the modern feminist perspective. One of the most irritating things about reading history and historical fiction today is placing modern morals on a historical time period. We need to view what was done with the morals of the time in mind. The author seemed to particularly hate the pinups. For many nose art lovers, that is the best art. When reading this book, I got the distinct impression of anti-Americanism as well. The author often implied the French and British were civil, while the Americans were the barbarians with their art. It really seemed like the author hated aircraft nose art which is why I was so confused why they were writing about a subject allegedly from the point of view of loving it - yet the text made it seemed like they hated it.

What was also incredibly frustrating was there were several major mistakes that appeared in the book. Spellcheck issues. Much repetition. The most glaring being not understanding that Disney does NOT make Warner Brothers cartoons like Bugs Bunny. Bugs was NOT a Disney property. They specifically were opposites and there has been a feud of sorts for nearly a century. That seems like something that should be easy enough to fact check.

I usually adore McFarland books. They have fascinating subjects and cover topics I usually love like history, Hollywood, etc. I can't believe how this book was the opposite of what I anticipated it would be. Such high hopes. It could have been such a good book. If you want a summary of 20th century social popular culture or nose art through a feminist "Men only objectify women and think of them as nothing but bodies" point of view, this is the only value I can find. ( )

First impression was to ask why there aren't more pictures. Don't get me wrong, there are quite a few pictures, but this is not a coffee table picture book.
The book goes into a lot of history, art, fashion, etc. Primary focus is WWI to Vietnam. Much of the book is about how the culture impacted the art chosen by crews to put on their planes. ( )

As others have noted, this is a book that isn't likely to match the preconceived expectations of many purchasers. Most books on this subject are large, horizontal-format, coffee-table affairs printed on coated paper, intended primarily to celebrate the art behind decorated military aircraft. There is some of that artistic appreciation here, but it seems peripheral to the main focus of this effort: a sociological study of how aircraft nose art serves as a reflection of the popular and political cultures of the eras in which they were created.

It's an interesting concept, and the book is a well-written exposé of that approach. In tone and content, it appears to be written primarily for academic audiences, and for behavioral scientists rather than historians. As a former academic historian, though, I don't think the book really breaks any new ground -- it basically confirms that, like most popular and commercial art, aircraft nose art was indeed a product reflective of the social norms of the culture that created it. It's also a bit troubling that, at least in some sections, the author also displays a feminist perspective that reads as being both preconceived and not balanced.

In the end, we're left with a book that really isn't going to appeal to the general reader, but still doesn't offer a level of depth or insight to make it a valuable contribution to the academic field. ( )

Andretta Schellinger takes the reader on a trip from the earliest days of aviation through the Vietnam War and presents the reader with a perspective on Aircraft nose art in a scholarly yet fresh context. Drawing on the culture, popular art, and evocative imagery of each wartime period as well as how technology developments may have influenced aircraft art, he tells a well rounded story of why certain images were used. His deep look into these perspectives run from the chivalrous images of World War I to the Playboy imagery of Vietnam. The author demonstrates a keen understanding of how military art on the battlefield serves as a bond between the man and the machine and also reflected the social and fashion trends of the day. (On a Personal note: Unit imagery played a huge role in my units during several wars.) Sorry for all you coffee table book fans - This book is not large print low substance glossies for your fleeting pleasure. It is a scholarly work deserving a careful read. Enlightening! ( )

This book has a durable and colorful cover (in uniform with their other titles) and good spine construction. The text is easy to read on the page and the large page width is someting uncommon but always appreciated. Color and B&W illustrations, Index and Bibliography are well done. Another great job by McFarlane in widening their catalogue and putting out many books each year.

This particular book was disappointing, editing wise. It looks as if it wasn't even edited at all. The topic is one I am very interested in but the actual subject matter is an exercise in feminist deconstruction using 20th century war as her revisionist vehicle to criticise nose art for what it implies about cultural attitudes toward women. Nowhere does the author say she will do this. I don't have a problem reading in this area but a stated intention is what most authors do to speak to their intended target audience.
The French and English are described as superior to the Americans because the former didn't use scantily clad woman on their aircaft art. This is a logical fallacy called affirming the consequent. Schellinger says, "The [less ostentatious] women on the [Cold War] British planes were at least partially clothed...Another possible reason was that British society was more respectful with regards to female body [sic]. Whatever the reason, more U.S. planes than British planes showed women unclothed (p. 128)."
So the French and British who allowed WWI to start and appeased Hitler to begin a Second World War are more civilized than Americans who painted nose art on their planes even though most Cold War aircraft were US? Schellinger admits that some of that reprehensible nose art had already been widely circulated in other media, usually print. She does not see that as valid factor from a feminist perspective.
This is a book I would not recommend at all but I do recommend McFarland the publisher for trying to broaden its readership by offering varied titles on all historical subjects.