Italy is working to protect Michelangelo’s famous sculpture of David from souvenirs inspired by the statue’s penis.
The artwork of the figure has inspired millions around the world since it was erected and put on display in 1504, but curators are now worried about the statue’s significance waning.
Director of the Galleria dell’Accademia, Cecilie Hollberg is in charge of defending the statues’ legacy and maintaining its political and religious significance in society.
As a result, there is now a distinct effort underway to protect the legacy of both the statue of David and other historically significant Italian artworks.
This latest quest follows in the footsteps of Ms Hollberg’s victory a few years ago where, at her encouragement, Florence’s state attorney office started a series of court cases to protect treasures such as Michelangelo’s David.
Ms Hollberg’s victory was won against ticket touts using the image of David to sell packages for the display at higher prices outside the gallery’s doors, just one of a series of lawsuits made by Hollberg.
One of these was made against a publishing house that superimposed a model’s face onto David’s body. ANSA reported that the court ruled that Michelangelo’s David “must be authorised, all the more so if the use is for advertising purposes”.
Ms Hollberg told the Mail: “I am sorry that there is so much ignorance and so little respect in the use of a work that for centuries has been praised for its beauty, for its purity, for its meanings, its symbols, to make products in bad taste, out of plastic.”
Since then, there have been several court cases to protect famous artworks around the world including Leonardo’s Vitruvian Man. However, the new legal battleground has raised questions about the power of lawmakers over artists.
Speaking about the matter, lawyer Thomas C. Danziger said it raised legal and philosophical issues. He said it raised questions over how much power people wanted to give institutions “over ideas and images”.
Using the example of Andy Warhol, Mr Danziger suggested whether he would have been prevented from producing work that was “derivative” had he been alive.
He added: “Many people would view this as a land grab by the Italian courts to control and monetise artworks in the public domain that were never intended to be charged for.”
As the debate over Michelangelo’s David and other artworks spreads around the world, there are growing questions over whether political institutions should get involved in the matter.
So far, the EU Commission for example has not commented on the legal actions being taken over Michelangelo’s David. However, as the number of legal actions grows and the number of artworks affected increases, it could become a more prominent political matter.
