Over at
Bloomberg View, Virginia Postrel has a great piece up
about reactions to gun maker ArmaLite’s use of Michelangelo’s David
to sell its firearms.
The advertisement image of an armed David offends and violates
the law,”tweeted tourism minister Dario Franceschini. Angel
Tartuferi, director of the Accademia Gallery, which houses the
sculpture, agreed: “The law says that the aesthetic value of the
work cannot be altered.”
Postrel notes that Italian officials are selective in their
outrage:
This moral posturing is clearly about something other than
respect for the sculpture’s “aesthetic value” or “cultural
dignity.” Otherwise, officials would crack down on the David boxer
shorts sold by countless Florentine vendors. And where was the
outrage in 1981, when the David was flogging Rush brand
poppers, amyl nitrite drugs used to enhance sexual pleasure, in
magazines aimed at gay men?
The former Reason editor in chief (online archive
here) drives home the point that giving David a gun is fully in
keeping with the original reason Florentine patrons were shelling
out money for statues of a guy known for taking an adversary much,
much bigger than he was.
They commissioned statues of David because he was a martial hero
who had felled an intimidating foe. They made him a beautiful nude
to emphasize his heroism, not to disguise his bloody deed.
(Donatello’s David has his boot triumphantly on Goliath’s severed
head.) Michelangelo’s giant was meant as an inspiration to locals
and a warning to would-be invaders. He wasn’t an underwear model.
He was a Minuteman. Putting a gun in his hand may look weird, but
it’s a lot truer to his original meaning than a souvenir apron.
from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1eQ6Kp2
via IFTTT