Many years ago, some fool put me in charge of an element of newspaper production which involved the selection of images. As a result I caused to be printed in that newspaper a photograph of Michelangelo’s David.

To be exact, it was a photograph of a fridge magnet of Michelangelo’s David. If memory serves, this item had recently been made available for sale in the shop at the Scottish National Gallery in Edinburgh. And by many years I mean a quarter of a century ago, back when phrases such as ‘trigger warning’ and ‘culture wars’ meant nothing much to anyone.

Except not quite. The next morning I fielded a call from an irate reader who was appalled that there was a picture of A Naked Man displayed prominently in her paper. She had children in the house, she said, and they had been Asking Questions.

I said: “Well, technically it’s a photograph of a statue of a naked man, not an image of the real thing. Moreover this one is hewn from marble, was created by the Renaissance genius Michelangelo in the early years of the 16th century, and for nearly 500 years now has been considered a masterpiece of Western visual art.”

Or something along those lines.

She said: “But I can see his penis.”

I said: “I refer you to my previous answer, madam.”

Or something along those lines.

She said: “But I can see his penis.”

We went round in circles like that until she hung up. She saw a penis, I saw Michelangelo’s David. We were never going to agree.

At the time it felt surreal, the caller weird and eccentric and unreasonably inflexible (thought doubtless she thought the same of me). Now I look back and realise she was a harbinger of sorts, because Michelangelo’s David has been causing trouble again – on both sides of the Atlantic this time – and in a manner and for a reason which makes me think there is much more to come in the same vein.

I imagine most people already know about the kerfuffle the old chap has caused in Glasgow. If not, a recap: an Italian restaurant in the city cooked up a poster featuring an image of the work but was refused advertising space in the Subway on they grounds of, well, nobody is quite sure because Global, the company concerned, hasn’t said.

Mario Gizzi, director of the group which runs the restaurant, expressed bemusement at the decision. “This is a globally recognised piece of art,” he said. “It is taught in schools. People from all over the world travel to see it. It’s not the 1500s anymore, it’s 2023.”

The Herald:

READ MORE: MICHELANGELO BANNED ON GLASGOW SUBWAY

There’s a lot to unpack there. For a start, the fact of it being 2023 and not the 1500s has a lot to do with why the image was banned, I think. Second, and following on from that, its presence in the schoolroom today is also not without its issues.

Here’s why. In March the Principal of Florida’s ironically named Tallahassee Classical School resigned, supposedly after complaints from three sets of parents regarding a sixth-grade lesson on Renaissance art which included you-know-what. Also on the rap sheet: Michelangelo’s painting The Creation Of Adam (you can see his penis too) and Sandro Botticelli’s work The Birth Of Venus (the one with the naked woman standing on the clam shell). And the nature of the complaints? That the children were being exposed to pornography.

That in itself is a serious issue. A Children’s Commissioner survey published in the UK earlier this year found that by age 11 – the equivalent of the American sixth grade – 27% of children had seen pornography. I don’t imagine the statistics are much different in the US. But The Creation Of Adam and The Birth Of Venus are not pornography. Nor is Michelangelo’s David.

Most of us think we know this. But we also know that those who think otherwise can be certain their objections will be heard and, often, acted upon – either by organisations which are scared of the consequences of not acting, or by an executive which panders to them and perhaps even encourages them.

It might not always result in the removal of posters from transit networks or the banishing of images of art works from the classroom, but each raised voice will add to the chorus of disapproval. And it won’t make any difference if people call it out as “ignorance”, as the director of the Accademia Gallery in Florence did. It’s 2023, not the 1500s: there is a whiff of puritanism in the air and potential for outrage in everything.

I probably shouldn’t draw attention to the fact, but if it’s 3D representations of the naked human form you take exception to there are plenty in Edinburgh to draw your ire. Take a walk along the Water of Leith and, at a bend below the Scottish National Gallery of Modern Art, you’ll find one of Anthony Gormley’s large standing figures fixed into the stream, genitals fully on display. There are four more downstream.

Does they need a trigger warning? Following the Florida case, perhaps they do. Perhaps there should be a sign saying “Penis ahead” in several languages. Already people have placed swimming trunks on the statues. Also boxer shorts, bikinis and masks. That was done in jest rather than out of protest, though, but it’s only a matter of time before they are covered up for other reasons.

Would a photograph of one of those sculptures pass muster on the Glasgow Subway now?

A proposed sculpture by the same artist has already run into trouble elsewhere. Intended for the grounds of Imperial College London and due to be constructed from a six-metre-high stack of cantilevered steel blocks, the abstract figure fell foul of the student body because part of it was deemed to be phallic. “An attack on modern art – and geometry” was the conclusion of one prominent critic, which pretty much nails it.

And so on and so on. Will this end up with someone taking a stand against all representations of nudity in public spaces, whether photographs of the real thing or sculptural representations of it? Will it matter whether it’s in a gallery or not? Will it stop at nudity or creep towards near-nudity? I hope not, because those sorts of images are everywhere. And what else in the canon will the outraged complainants of Tallahassee and their fellow travellers consider pornographic in the future if they have won this skirmish?

The poster that should have been on the Glasgow Subway (pictured above) showed the naked David eating a slice of pizza along with the slogan: “It doesn’t get more Italian than that.” In that sense, banning the image is a cultural slight as well as an artistic one. The Italians are rightly proud of their David, and rightly miffed at its being dissed.

How will the Greeks feel if people start fussing about their statuary next? In the opening ceremony of the Athens Olympics in 2004, after all, male dancers performed stripped to the waist to resemble just such naked figures. They kept their pants on, but over the top of their pants they had leggings which made them look more muscled and which featured genitalia, as Ancient Greek statuary does.

It was intended as a celebration of culture. Somehow I can’t see anyone getting away with that today. Certainly not in Florida – or in many other places either.