4 ms·

> 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

> 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…

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…