I just read an interesting article in The Guardian about a recent dispute over ownership of Michelangelo's David. The statue, initially commissioned by the Office of Works of the Duomo (in Florence), was completed by Michelangelo (a Florentine) in 1504, installed after consulting a committee of local artists including Leonardo (also Florentine) and Botticelli (ditto), and has been installed in Florence for the past 506 years. It is a singular point of pride for Florence, a city certainly not lacking for numerous points of pride.
According to the article, though, two lawyers in the Berlusconi administration have produced a nine-page document "proving" that David belongs to the Italian state and not Florence. All I can say is, "Well, then. Why stop there? Let's just "prove" that David belongs to the entire world, shall we?" (In other words, I'm firmly in the Florentine camp on this.)
Your thoughts?
Image Caption:
Restoration work on Michelangelo's masterpiece David is completed May 24, 2004 at the Galleria dell'Accademia in Florence, Italy. The work has taken a painstaking two years to complete with the statue going on show to the public May 25. Photo © Franco Origlia/Getty Images
Comments
Interesting – as Italy didn’t exist as a political entity until the later 19th c. there seems to ba little retroactive garnering going on here!
David does belong to the world and Italy/Florence are his caretakers!
If Berlusconi can annex it into the Italian Treasury, he probably wants it to end up in his pension (not penzione).
When the statue was commissioned, Italy, as a country did not exist. Only the city-states.
Well, yes, there is a definite and understandable argument here. Florence’s (or Firenze’s) history is great. First known to be settled by the Etruscans in the 8th century B.C., then taken over and named Florentia by the Romans in the 1st century B.C. The French Carolingians conquered it in 774, and it didn’t become a free commune until 1115. It was the capital of Italy from 1865 to 1871; so, so much for Rome.
This argument is much like those between the Ukrainians and Russians; Ukraine being a free country unto itself again now, can reclaim everything the Russians said was theirs. Until Florence abdicates from Rome and Italy, I’m afraid it remains technically and politically Italian. So, yes, Italy can claim everything that Florence and its citizens have produced. That would include the following who were born in Florence:
Dante Aligieri (1265)
Giovanni Bocaccio (1313)
Nicolo Machiavelli (1469)
Guccio Gucci (1881) – and his offspring.
Florence Nigtingale (1820) – Oops, she was born there, and named for the city in which she was born, but her wealthy parents were from Derbyshire, and returned there some time after their daughter’s birth. So, no, Italy you cannot claim her as yours.
Yes, another example of “government taking,” a legal term that has meaning in the US, too, tho not so often with artwork.
“David” should stay where he is. I have nothing against Italy (except Mossilini) excuse the mispell. Florence has been David’s home for a long time and (in my opinion) deservse to remain there. Sounds like Rome has a bad case of jelousy and greed.
What difference does it makes? It’s obviously for political purposes, unless the goverments pretends to say “ok it’s our statue but you can have it, Florence!”