5 ms·

If some wealthy person in the 1500's had put two replicas of the statue of David in front of their house they'd have had some angry neighbors as well. (especial

If some wealthy person in the 1500's had put two replicas of the statue of David in front of their house they'd have had some angry neighbors as well. (especially if those neighbors were Catholics, which they most likely would have been) That's not to say that these statues are quite on that level of masterpiece art, but certainly an argument could be made that they rise above the level of kitsch (still a valid if less well regarded genre) into the realm of "legitimate art". In fact a reasonable argument could be made that they exist at the cross section of modern & classically-inspired art. Cultural icons raised to the aesthetics & inspiration of classical masterpieces. Of course I wouldn't read that precise intent into this owner's display. I mean only that, provided all laws are being followed, the aesthetic taste of one neighbor on their property probably shouldn't be abridge by the differing tastes of another neighbor. But if I was the owner, and trying to make a point about the legitimacy of my right to decorate as I'd like, I'd respond to neighbors' complaints with a few small fig leads satirically placed over the crotches of the robots. However I'm also unclear on the land ownership here, which probably matters: The article references the sidewalks as a public space, but what is the specific ownership of the land underneath the statues? Where I live, there are defined statutes regarding ownership of areas of public usage like side walks that are, nonetheless, nominally owned by the homeowner & home attached. These things can vary by city and state. In my area, rights and responsibilities are split. I am not responsible for maintaining the physical structure of the sidewalk, but I am responsible for maintaining its usability in the form of snow or other debris removal.

bombcar 3y ago
Those "pedestals" that they are on look as old as the building, and I suspect they're "outside the sidewalk easement" - they look like originally they may have had large flowerpots or trees in a pot or something similar. Later on in the article they call them "filled in planters" so that fits.
elnatro 3y ago
> David was originally commissioned as one of a series of statues of prophets to be positioned along the roofline of the east end of Florence Cathedral, but was instead placed in the public square in front of the Palazzo della Signoria, the seat of civic government in Florence, where it was unveiled on 8 September 1504. […] > On January 25, 1504, when the sculpture was nearing completion, Florentine authorities had to acknowledge there would be little possibility of raising the 5.17 metre high statue approximately weighing more than six tons to the roof of the cathedral. So, no, that naked man statue was going to be placed in a Catholic Cathedral (but the statue weighed too much). Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_(Michelangelo) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_(Michelangelo)
- ineedasername 3y ago
  So, Yes. You need to read beyond a portion of a Wikipedia page and more about the general response and backlash against works of art subsequent to the very early days of the 16th century. It Initial acceptance gave way to offended sensibilities as as those sensibilities changed. Censorship and fig leaves resulted. If such things interest you, search out information about about the history of art and its reception after the early days of the 1500’s, much of which was directly influenced by the Church’s views on aesthetic propriety. You certainly cannot just cite its initial commission and placement and stop there, not without being wrong in a way that is easily avoidable. As such my original claim stands: the statue was censored shortly after its creation. It was the beginning of a movement that formally culminated in a decree by the a few decades earlier that codified the that common practice of censorship into mandated Church procedures. So I’m just a few years after it’s creation, the statue of David placed as-is in front a a home would have been the subject of local outrage.
  - elnatro 3y ago
    If the statue had been censured, it would have been removed from the public eye. There was no separation between Church and state during that time, so…
drewcoo 3y ago
David is art. This is advertising. In the 1500s there wasn't really advertising and children wouldn't really become a target for advertising until the 1900s. The flush toilet and bottled beer were both new in the 1500s, though, so you might imagine someone installing a giant beer bottle and toilet to guard their front door and tell the world to buy cool products.
- r00t4ccess 3y ago
  The statue of david is marketing for Michelangelo since you could see the statue and go buy merchandise with it or other works of his on it.
  - drewcoo 3y ago
    That's not how arts patronage would have worked in the 1500s.
    - r00t4ccess 3y ago
      I get that, I am making the comparison for how it could work today. Since i am assuming there was david coffee mugs, tshirts, key chains, etc. Art could also be advertising for the establishment that currently holds the piece as well.
- ineedasername 3y ago
  Advertising for what? The owner had not displayed them as part marketing marketing and advertising campaigns, he's a private own. They are recreations of fictional characters that have been around for decades and, yes, happen to have movies made about them. (Movies which themselves fall into some category of art as well). Otherwise: > In the 1500s there wasn't really advertising This is simply wrong and requires only a LMGTFY and I will leave that to you. Advertisements extend back to ancient civilizations. Being wrong, and given the presence of public advertising through the centuries, the argument that these robots are, as advertisements (even if I agreed on that), verboten for public display, that argument is invalid. As for aiming it at children, that is irrelevant because, again, what the person in this article did was not advertising. Flush Toilets and bottled beer: You've chosen two things that, like the statue of David, would undoubtedly have garnered neighborly ire. So I am claiming that statues of David would not have been well regarded, and your counter claim is something like "Well here are other items that would have also been disapproved of". That sounds much more like agreement than a valid counterclaim. Further, you've chosen two items that in modern times do actually have examples of their being used as art. Finding examples is again a very simple matter of LMGTFY. Next, actual advertisement including bear bottles (sometimes just their labels and advertisement, sometimes the objects themselves) and many other mundane objects and products-- including jumbo formats, are regarded by many and collected as art. In general they are frequently collected as a form of nostalgia art, sometimes regarded as kitsch, or for its illuminating of a small cross section of modern life. In many cases these are also desirable for the true thoughtful care and artistry that went into their design. You'd find very few designers of logos etc. that do not in some way regard what they do as a form of art, even if it doesn't rise to the level (highly subjective) of "high art".

bombcar 3y ago

Those "pedestals" that they are on look as old as the building, and I suspect they're "outside the sidewalk easement" - they look like originally they may have had large flowerpots or trees in a pot or something similar. Later on in the article they call them "filled in planters" so that fits.

elnatro 3y ago

> David was originally commissioned as one of a series of statues of prophets to be positioned along the roofline of the east end of Florence Cathedral, but was instead placed in the public square in front of the Palazzo della Signoria, the seat of civic government in Florence, where it was unveiled on 8 September 1504. […] > On January 25, 1504, when the sculpture was nearing completion, Florentine authorities had to acknowledge there would be little possibility of raising the 5.17 metre high statue approximately weighing more than six tons to the roof of the cathedral. So, no, that naked man statue was going to be placed in a Catholic Cathedral (but the statue weighed too much). Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_(Michelangelo) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_(Michelangelo)

ineedasername 3y ago
So, Yes. You need to read beyond a portion of a Wikipedia page and more about the general response and backlash against works of art subsequent to the very early days of the 16th century. It Initial acceptance gave way to offended sensibilities as as those sensibilities changed. Censorship and fig leaves resulted. If such things interest you, search out information about about the history of art and its reception after the early days of the 1500’s, much of which was directly influenced by the Church’s views on aesthetic propriety. You certainly cannot just cite its initial commission and placement and stop there, not without being wrong in a way that is easily avoidable. As such my original claim stands: the statue was censored shortly after its creation. It was the beginning of a movement that formally culminated in a decree by the a few decades earlier that codified the that common practice of censorship into mandated Church procedures. So I’m just a few years after it’s creation, the statue of David placed as-is in front a a home would have been the subject of local outrage.
- elnatro 3y ago
  If the statue had been censured, it would have been removed from the public eye. There was no separation between Church and state during that time, so…

drewcoo 3y ago

David is art. This is advertising. In the 1500s there wasn't really advertising and children wouldn't really become a target for advertising until the 1900s. The flush toilet and bottled beer were both new in the 1500s, though, so you might imagine someone installing a giant beer bottle and toilet to guard their front door and tell the world to buy cool products.

r00t4ccess 3y ago
The statue of david is marketing for Michelangelo since you could see the statue and go buy merchandise with it or other works of his on it.
- drewcoo 3y ago
  That's not how arts patronage would have worked in the 1500s.
  - r00t4ccess 3y ago
    I get that, I am making the comparison for how it could work today. Since i am assuming there was david coffee mugs, tshirts, key chains, etc. Art could also be advertising for the establishment that currently holds the piece as well.
ineedasername 3y ago
Advertising for what? The owner had not displayed them as part marketing marketing and advertising campaigns, he's a private own. They are recreations of fictional characters that have been around for decades and, yes, happen to have movies made about them. (Movies which themselves fall into some category of art as well). Otherwise: > In the 1500s there wasn't really advertising This is simply wrong and requires only a LMGTFY and I will leave that to you. Advertisements extend back to ancient civilizations. Being wrong, and given the presence of public advertising through the centuries, the argument that these robots are, as advertisements (even if I agreed on that), verboten for public display, that argument is invalid. As for aiming it at children, that is irrelevant because, again, what the person in this article did was not advertising. Flush Toilets and bottled beer: You've chosen two things that, like the statue of David, would undoubtedly have garnered neighborly ire. So I am claiming that statues of David would not have been well regarded, and your counter claim is something like "Well here are other items that would have also been disapproved of". That sounds much more like agreement than a valid counterclaim. Further, you've chosen two items that in modern times do actually have examples of their being used as art. Finding examples is again a very simple matter of LMGTFY. Next, actual advertisement including bear bottles (sometimes just their labels and advertisement, sometimes the objects themselves) and many other mundane objects and products-- including jumbo formats, are regarded by many and collected as art. In general they are frequently collected as a form of nostalgia art, sometimes regarded as kitsch, or for its illuminating of a small cross section of modern life. In many cases these are also desirable for the true thoughtful care and artistry that went into their design. You'd find very few designers of logos etc. that do not in some way regard what they do as a form of art, even if it doesn't rise to the level (highly subjective) of "high art".