上世纪六七十年代以来,后现代“终结”了历史,视觉文化研究“取代”了艺术电的写作。长时段、大历史的写作变得不再可能,印便有,也得不到学界承认。难怪有人说,只有三流或不入流的学者,才会去写教材。然而,应试教育体制下的这套模式至今依然主导着我们的知识结构。所以,我们对于艺术史的认知似乎始终离不开几个关键语词所建构的叙事框架和演进逻辑,学习数年,耳熟能详的无非是几个节点,几个流派,及其相应的几种风格。这样一种叙事彻底抽空了艺术史内在的复杂性,完全忽 Since the sixties and seventies of the last century, the postmodern “end” of history, visual culture research “replaced ” the art of writing. For a long time, the writing of the great history becomes impossible, there is no printing, no academic recognition. No wonder some people say that only third-class or non-inflow of scholars, will write textbooks. However, this model under the exam-oriented education system still dominates our knowledge structure. Therefore, our cognition of art history seems to be inseparable from the narrative framework and evolutionary logic constructed by several key words. It has been a matter of study for a few years that few nodes, schools of genres, and corresponding styles . Such a narrative completely takes the inherent complexity of art history and completely ignores it