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 ear

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.