It’s not the first time that a great work of art has been used, or abused, in order to sell a product, but the transformation of Michelangelo’s celebrated sculpture of David into a gun toting sniper seems to be ruffling a lot of feathers …

Left: Michelangelo’s celebrated sculpture of David. Right: ArmaLite’s version. Is it just me, or does his expression look meaner on the right?

Here’s an extract from an article in the Firenze edition of the online version of La Repubblica:

Al posto della fionda, un fucile di precisione. Così il David secondo ArmaLite Inc, un’azienda produttrice di armi con sede nell’Illinois, che ha deciso, per la sua nuova campagna pubblicitaria, di far imbracciare alla scultura di Michelangelo, simbolo di Firenze e dell’arte italiana nel mondo, l’AR 50A1, un enorme fucile di tipo "bolt action" dal valore di oltre 3 mila dollari. Ad accompagnare il fotomontaggio, lo slogan "A work of art", un’opera d’arte.

In place of a sling, a precision rifle. This is David according to ArmaLite Inc, an armaments manufacturer with its headquarters in Illinois, who have decided to have Michelangelo’s sculpture, symbol of Florence and Italian art throughout the world, holding an AR 50A1, a huge bolt action rifle worth more than 3 thousand dollars, for their new publicity campaign. Accompanying the photomontage the slogan "A work of art".

Diffusa su riviste americane specializzate in armamenti come Rifle Firepower, l’immagine shock è stata pubblicata ieri da l’Espresso, scatenando un putiferio nel mondo dell’arte.

Widespread in American magazines specialising in weapons, such as Rifle Firepower, the shocking image was published yesterday by l’Espresso, provoking a ruckus in the art world.

"Diffideremo l’azienda dal continuare a divulgarla", annuncia la soprintendente al Polo museale fiorentino Cristina Acidini. Già perché l’opera di Michelangelo, custodita dal 1873, quando fu tolta da piazza della Signoria, alla Galleria dell’Accademia, è protetta da diritti, e un suo utilizzo a scopo pubblicitario è subordinato, per legge, al rilascio di un permesso da parte dell’ente titolare  -  in questo caso lo Stato, nella veste dei responsabili del museo  -  e al pagamento di un canone.

“We will warn the company to stop spreading it (the image)”, announced the supervisor of Florence Museums Cristina Acidini. Particularly because Michelangelo’s work, preserved here since 1873, when it was taken from the piazza della Signoria to the Galleria dell’Accademia, is protected by rights, and its use for publicity purposes is subject by law to the release of a permit from the holding entity (in this case the state, represented by the custodians of the museum) and the payment of a fee.

"Per sfruttare a scopo promozionale il David, così come qualunque altra opera custodita nei nostri musei  -  spiegano dall’ufficio permessi di via della Ninna  -  è necessaria una valutazione della congruità dell’immagine, che deve rispettarne la dignità culturale. In passato, campagne pubblicitarie di aziende italiane sono state autorizzate dietro valutazione del direttore e decisione della soprintendente".

“To use David for promotional purposes, as with any other work of art preserved in our museums” explain the employees of the permits office in Via della Ninna “it’s necessary to carry out an evaluation of the appropriateness of the image, which must respect its cultural dignity. In the past, publicity campaigns by Italian companies have been authorised after evaluations carried out by the director and the decision of the supervisor”.

Conferma il direttore dell’Accademia, Angelo Tartuferi: "La legge dice che la valenza estetica dell’opera non può essere snaturata. In questo caso siamo di fronte a un atto, oltre che di cattivo gusto, del tutto illecito. Da parte della società americana non è stata fatta nessuna richiesta ufficiale al museo: in ogni caso non avrei mai dato il mio assenso". "Interverremo senz’altro", riprende Acidini, per poi chiarire: "Certo, si tratta di un caso internazionale e non posso, evidentemente, scatenare l’Fbi contro ArmaLite. Ma intendo utilizzare tutte le possibilità di reazione che ho a disposizione per farli desistere, a cominciare dalla "moral suasion" e dallo scandalo sui giornali".

Angelo Tartuferi, direct of the Academy confirms: “the law states that the aesthetic value of the work cannot be altered. In this case we are facing an act which, apart from being in bad taste, is completely illegal. The American company has made no official request to the museum: and in any case I wouldn’t have given my permission”. “We will definitely intervene”, takes up Acidini, who goes on to clarify: “Of course, this is an international case, and I obviously can’t unleash the FBI on ArmaLite. But I intend to use all the powers at my disposition to make them stop, beginning with ‘moral persuasion’ and the press scandal”.

My opinion: David was a great marksman with his slingshot, but if the AR 50A1 had been around in his day I believe he would have chosen it over a stone, killing Goliath from a safe distance, ‘one shot one kill’ style. On the other hand I can completely sympathise with the fact that Michelangelo’s sculpture is one of the great prides of Italian art and culture, and I can see that abusing its image without even requesting permission could be very offensive to some people. I can imagine people thinking: ‘what do we have to be proud of in Italy beyond our political and financial messes? we have Art and Culture … and it’s not pleasant to see that precious heritage ‘stolen and distorted’ by an American armaments manufacturer without our permission’.

What’s your opinion? Please share in the ‘Leave a Reply’ section …

Finally, let me leave you with a few more ‘interesting’ images of David to ponder over.

… as social commentary …

… more ads, and a bit of fun …

… get your fig leaves ready!

… so presumably permission was granted for these ‘tasteful’ tourist souvenirs???