ary interest; and, though
correct enough in classic form, was lacking in the classic spirit.
Like all reanimated art, it was derivative as regards its forms and
lacking in spontaneity. The reason for the existence of Greek art died
with its civilization, and those, like the French classicists, who
sought to revive it, brought a copy of the past into the present,
expecting the world to accept it.

There was some social, and perhaps artistic, reason, however, for the
revival of the classic in the French art of the late eighteenth
century. It was a revolt, and at that time revolts were popular. The
art of Boucher and Van Loo had become quite unbearable. It was
flippant, careless, licentious. It had no seriousness or dignity about
it. Moreover, it smacked of the Bourbon monarchy, which people had
come to hate. Classicism was severe, elevated, respectable at least,
and had the air of the heroic republic about it. It was a return to a
sterner view of life, with the martial spirit behind it as an impetus,
and it had a great vogue. For many years during the Revolution, the
Consulate, and the Empire, classicism was accepted by the sovereigns
and the Institute of France, and to this day it lives in a modified
form in that semi-classic work known as academic art.

THE CLASSIC SCHOOL: Vien (1716-1809) was the first painter to protest
against the art of Boucher and Van Loo by advocating more nobility of
form and a closer study of nature. He was, however, more devoted to
the antique forms he had studied in Rome than to nature. In subject
and line his tendency was classic, with a leaning toward the Italians
of the Decadence. He lacked the force to carry out a complete reform
in painting, but his pupil David (1748-1825) accomplished what he had
begun. It was David who established the reign of classicism, and by
native power became the leader. The time was appropriate, the
Revolution called for pictures of Romulus, Brutus and Achilles, and
Napoleon encouraged the military theme. David had studied the marbles
at Rome, and he used them largely for models, reproducing scenes from
Greek and Roman life in an elevated and sculpturesque style, with much
archaeological knowledge and a great deal of skill. In color, relief,
sentiment, individuality, his painting was lacking. He despised all
that. The rhythm of line, the sweep of composed groups, the heroic
subject and the heroic treatment, made up his art. It was thoroughly
objective, and what