外国美术史著作的翻译问题虽是老生常谈,因笔者亦屡为译事,不妨谈几句大白话,纯属个人体会。笔者的立场是:翻译一事,只恨其少,不厌其多;就事论事,莫伤人心:外国美术史的研究,翻译是第一步。经典名著和最新学术成果翻译之必要性,恐无须赘述。此其一。虽然不厌其多,选择翻什么仍然甚是重要,以期依轻重缓急集中资源各个击破。丁宁近二十年前的《绵延之维》(1997年)即为学界打开了艺术史哲学的国际视野,附录中的《西方艺术史哲学参考文献一览》罗列著作论文数百种。略晚(2003年)出版的《美术史的形状》(范景中主编)更是 Although the translation of books on the history of foreign art is a cliché, I often speak a few vernacular words because of the author’s repeated translation, which is purely personal. The author’s position is: translation of a matter, only hate its less, never tired of much; on the matter, sad wounds: the history of foreign art research, translation is the first step. Needless to translate classic classics and the latest academic achievements, it is unnecessary to repeat them. One of these. Although we are not tired of it, it is still very important to choose what to turn over, in the hope that priority will be given to focusing resources on breaking through each other’s priorities. The “rolling dimension” (1997) of Ding Ning nearly twenty years ago opened the international horizon of the art history philosophy to academics. In the appendix, “The List of Western Art History Philosophical References” lists hundreds of papers published. Even later (2003) published “the shape of art history” (Fan Jingzhong editor) even more