藝術的崇高文化形象往往讓人忘記藝術家在追尋其藝術理想之外仍須覓得生活之基本所需，然而，事實是，藝術創作必然地需要有一定的經濟後盾。循著這個思索的方向，本文意欲探究執政府時期（Consulat，1799-1804）及第一帝國時期（1804-1814）畫家大衛主要的經濟來源－為波拿帕特．拿破崙繪製畫作之所得，並追溯這位統治者向大衛訂製、購買畫作及畫家索取畫款的歷史，檢視他們二者間單純的畫作交易如何轉為問題層出的金錢糾紛。 本文將首先探討大衛如何地以狂熱衝動擁抱波拿帕特．拿破崙的時代、如何地從中構築其個人的野心與憧憬，進而對自我的藝術才能充滿自負，而主觀地賦予它超越所有一切體制或標準的價值。其次將透過官方訂購畫作的價格標準與官僚體系之運作機制的掌握，說明當時客觀的現實環境。最後則論述這二者在一幅幅畫作的訂購與交易過程中一次次的對立與衝突。從中我們可以發現，拿破崙完全未與畫家共享至上而絕對的藝術價值觀，相反地立場搖擺、出爾反爾，最終視藝術作品為可議價的商品。這場金錢糾紛中大衛致命的盲點，就是他對拿破崙幾近天真的熱情與信任。而與此相依存的，是他的執拗狂妄，輕忽、甚至挑戰客觀現實，寄望其才能戰勝既定常規。然而，十八世紀以來即使最負盛名的巴黎畫家，都罕能獨立於市場規則之外，大衛註定成為這場金錢糾紛中夢想幻滅的輸家！

The exalted cultural image of art makes it easy for people to forget the fact that an artist, in addition to the pursuit of his artistic ideal, still has to meet the basic needs in his life. However, the truth is that artistic creation definitely requires financial support. Following this direction of thinking, this thesis is meant to discuss the main financial source of Jacques-Louis David, the renowned painter in the period of Consultation (1799-1804) and the regin of the First Empire (1804-1814), which he obtained by painting Bonaparte Napoleon. Also, this thesis traces back to the time when the sovereign Napoleon ordered, purchased the painter's paintings and when the painter asked for the sum of money for them, probing how the simple trade between these two turned out to be a pile of entanglements of money. This thesis, first of all, discusses how David embraced the reign of Bonaparte Napoleon with impulsive fervent passion, developing his own ambition and having visions for the future, and consequently became a man full of conceit, boasting his artistic talent, which he subjectively valued as superior to all the other systems and standards. Secondly, the thesis states the subjectively actual circumstances at that time, depicting the standards of the price with which the authorities ordered the paintings and the operational mechanism of the bureaucratic system. Lastly, the thesis remarks on the operational mechanism of the bureaucratic system. Lastly, the thesis remarks on the opposition and conflicts appearing again and again in the process of the ordering and trading of the paintings derived from the two reasons mentioned above. From the reoccurrence of the disputes and conflicts, we can find that Napoleon did not share with the painter the supreme exclusive artistic values; on the contrary, he swung his stance, promised and then denied once and again, and eventually regarded paintings as nothing but goods for which the prices could be bargained. David's blind spot in these disputes of money was his rather naïve passion for Napoleon and his trust in him. What was interdependent on this was his obstinacy, arrogance, negligence, and, what is worse, his challenge to the subjective reality. He expected that his talent could outfight the usual conventions. From the 18th century on, even the most famous painters could not have excluded themselves from the conventions of the markets; such being the case, David was desined to be the loser, whose dream shattered in his entanglements of money.