I'm in two minds about painting 3W's in war paint with pseudo markings, on the one hand I can see that it is a harmless (if a little juvenile) and fun way to personalise your car. on a deeper level though what do war planes represent but a way of killing your fellow man.
An interesting discussion.
I have a painting by
Alex Hamilton of a Spitfire and in no way do I view it as a representation of "killing your fellow man."
Without dragging up a conversation about the rights and wrongs of wars, including justification, from a personal perspective, I view the Spitfire as a beautiful object. Whether painted in camouflage and equipped with guns or painted in one colour civilian paint and without weapons, I would still find it a stunning piece of design. Like a Morgan, I could simply look at it for hours and enjoy so many aesthetic aspects of it. Can it be used to kill, yes it can; however, the same could be said for many items and in this instance, and many others, I am able and willing to separate the way someone might choose to use an inanimate object and the innate beauty of it.
Another example would be the Samurai sword. I own one and while the sole purpose of a sword would seem to be defence and/or attack, mine has never been 'used in anger' and I love it for the craftsmanship (the work on the handle, the folding of the steel, etc).
I believe the conversation is perhaps separation of form and function and whether one chooses to do so or not.
In the case of the Morgan Three Wheeler, I wouldn't choose to have bullet hole decals and military roundels because they don't 'speak' to me, nor do I appreciate the aesthetics of them (the RAF roundel is excluded from this but I still wouldn't fit it to a car). The Shark mouth, however, I have always loved the design of and would fit it to the M3W. Richard, I take your point and can understand it (I also respect it) but in my case, I'd view the fitting of the Shark mouth as utilising a design element rather than a emulating, or praising, a war machine.
