In Defense of David

During a lesson on the Renaissance this past March, Florida students were shown a photograph of Michelangelo’s David, a fitting choice, given that the sculpture is arguably the most symbolic of the period. However, two parents of the Tallahassee Classical School complained that they were not notified before their children were shown the image, while one went as far as to call the statue pornographic. The three parents’ complaints led the school board to take action: Principal Hope Carrasquilla was given the choice to either resign or accept dismissal. In defense of this decision, Barney Bishop III, the chair of the school board, told the Tallahassee Democrat that the practice of the Public Charter school is to protect the interests of parents, since “parental rights are supreme.” He also mentioned that instances beyond this particular lesson informed the board’s decision, but refused to elaborate. 

‍

In an interview with the outlet Slate, Bishop III said that the fact that parents were not notified in advance of the lesson was an “egregious mistake.” He added that parents should be notified anytime “controversial topics or subjects” are shown, for the classical education offered by the school instills “civic and moral values” and is sensitive to traditional preferences. While this outlook may not be unusual in such a conservative community, the classification of Michelangelo’s David as a “controversial topic” has been globally noted as absurd. The story has made news around the world as the art-loving and politically engaged disagree with the Florida school board and the three vexed parents. Other parents and teachers of the Tallahassee Classical School have attempted to reverse the board’s decision, but Carrasquilla noted that she might not take the job even if it were offered back to her after “such controversy and such upheaval.”

‍

In defense of the statue, the mayor of Florence, Dario Nardella, tweeted that confusing art for pornography is “absolutely ridiculous,” while Cecilie Hollberg, director of the Galleria dell'Accademia, said in a telephone interview that "to think that David could be pornographic means truly not understanding the contents of the Bible, not understanding Western culture and not understanding Renaissance art." Both Nardella and Hollberg formally invited Carrasquilla to Florence to see David. 

‍

The famed 16th-century sculpture depicts the Biblical shepherd boy David, who killed the giant Goliath with nothing but a sling and stone. His nudity, described in the Bible, is an indication of the purity of his strength and courage and of his faith in God. The nude David is glorified, represented in a way that was typical of the Renaissance period. It was not questioned by perhaps the most conservative community of all, the Cathedral of Florence who commissioned it. In fact, the members of the Vestry Board were so amazed by the sculpture’s beauty that they decided against placing it high up in the cathedral, instead opting to position it in Florence’s central Piazza della Signoria, so that the people of Florence may experience their faith through its perfection. 

‍

To this day, David is a remarkable statue that epitomizes the artistic movement of the Renaissance. Every year, millions of people visit Florence’s Galleria dell’Accademia to experience the figure up close. Viewers, perhaps even subconsciously, perceive it as part of the greatness of the revered period. It is a work of art beyond societal notions of propriety and obscenity, beyond what some, like Bishop III, deem “civic and moral values.” David’s nudity exists in the realm of spiritual art, rendered by a master whose talent is undeniable. It transcends time and it transcends people. It cannot be “controversial” because it is greater than those who think they have the authority to distinguish what is controversial from what is not. 

‍

Marla Stone, head of humanities studies in the American Academy of Rome, noted that "the [Florida school] incident is about fear, fear of beauty, of difference, and of the possibilities embedded in art." Deeming David a controversial image means ignoring the immutable art behind a surface that has become subjective, one that some see as obscene and others can see as beautiful. This art, one of the few things that remain unchanged since the 16th-century, holds the power to help us understand our history and evolution. We must be able to understand it, and to do that, we must see it.