David’s style was continued and refined by his pupil J.-A.-Dominique Ingres (page 15), whose father was a painter at Montauban. Ingres’ apprenticeship with David and eighteen years spent in Italy led Ingres to paint with precise, sculpturesque draftsmanship and coldly calculated color. To sustain the classical tradition, his subjects were usually drawn from mythology and ancient history. After he returned to Paris, in 1824, Ingres’ ideal of perfectionism came to dominate academic art. Behind it the Academy had the weight of traditionally accepted theory and the splendid accomplishments of the Old Masters. The theory, growing from ancient classical concepts of art, seemed infallible and, on such a theoretical basis, the five hundred years preceding the nineteenth century had produced an extremely impressive art. Imitation of idealized figures was the chief aim of the academic painter. By showing nature “as it ought to be,” the artist served philosophical and ethical ends; he could educate mankind by painting morally improving illustrations of heroic deeds. On this premise art had been raised during the Renaissance from a handicraft to rank with the liberal arts. Academies had arisen to prove the merits of art, and why should such august institutions be challenged? But even in the early years of the century artists revolted against the academic limitations. Eugène Delacroix (page 17) was the central figure in the opposing Romantic movement. Son of a prefect of Marseilles, Delacroix began painting in 1813 as an amateur in a Parisian academic studio. Soon new sensuous richness of coloring and a feeling of lively movement entered Delacroix’s pictures to express strong emotions. His art reveals new psychological penetration; as he said, addressing his fellow artists, “Anything can be a subject. The real subject is yourself; it is your impressions, your emotions before nature. You must search within yourself, not look about you.” Delacroix’s life was embittered by the jealous rivalry of Ingres, who called him “the apostle of ugliness” and prevented him from teaching in the Academy, but his daring use of color was to influence many later painters.