边界、观星沉思与工业图像——再谈艺术史如何可能

Borders, Stargazing Contemplation and Industrial Images——On How Art History is Possible

艺术史方法论争论的两个焦点问题是“去中心化”和“图像史的分离”。艺术史学史反思每一个具体的艺术史研究的中心模式,寻求避免或改良艺术史写作在民族、门类、年代、风格等层面的各种中心主义。去中心化的艺术史并非否决和推翻已有的中心,而是重新定义边界,其方法论革命必然开始于对各种边界的批判和超越。艺术史不仅需要艺术史家丰富的体验与阐释能力,而且需要其尽可能像自然科学家那样跳出主体的单向视角,从超越性的视角去建立艺术史的知识,让艺术的“混沌”进入“宇宙”。随着工业图像的出现,艺术史与图像史分离,工业图像创造了无处不在的形式,带来艺术史上前所未有的图像积累与传播。但在一部彻底贯彻了“去中心化”意图的艺术史中,艺术似乎又从“宇宙”回归“混沌”,这样的艺术史便只剩下图像史,一种“艺术终结后”的艺术史书写又是否可能?

The two focal points of art history debate are “decentralization” and “separation from the history of images”. The history of art history reflects on the central model of each specific art history study, seeking to avoid or improve its various centralisms in terms of ethnic group, category, age, style, etc. A methodological revolution of a decentralized general art history that transcends art categories must begin with the critique and transcendence of various borders. Art history research not only requires rich experience and interpretation skills, but also needs to jump out of the single perspective as much as possible, to establish the knowledge of art history from a transcendent perspective, and to let the “chaos” of art enter the “universe”. With the emergence of industrial images, art history and image history were separated, and industrial images created ubiquitous forms, bringing unprecedented image accumulation and dissemination in art history. But in an art history that thoroughly implements the intention of “decentralization”, art seems to return to “chaos” from the “cosmos”. So the art history is only the history of images. Is it possible to write an art history after the “end of art”?