读了今年《美苑》第三期发表的朱青生先生的文章, 颇为迷惑,借此与朱先生商榷。朱先生在文章一开始就下了一个带有权威口气的定义式结论:“中国美术史学正经历着一个根本的改变,这个改变与中国的社会变革相应。这就是:教材美术史时代将终结,问题美术史时代将开始。”实际上并不存在这种故弄玄虚的什么“终结”与“开始”。这种把目前我国美术史研究状况分类为“教材美术史”和“问题美术史”的提法也不可靠。理由很简单,就是研究美术史的方法不同而已。既然方法不同,所研究的领域、目的、意义及价值也必然不同。怎么能说哪一种该“终结”,哪一种该“开始”?文章中还十分赞同布克哈特的美术史著作《文艺复兴时代的文化》“在上一个世纪伊始,成为人类精神的最高科学成就和文化的昭 After reading the article published by Mr. Chu Ching-sheng in the third issue of “Beauty Court” this year, it is rather confusing to discuss with Mr. Chu. At the beginning of the article, Mr. Zhu put down a definitive conclusion with authoritative tone: “China’s art historiography is going through a fundamental change corresponding to the social changes in China, and this is the end of the art history of textbooks, The era of art history will start. ”There is virtually no“ end ”or“ start ”of this trickery. This formulation of the current state of art history in our country as “textbook art history” and “problematic art history” is not reliable. The reason is very simple, that is, the method of studying art history is different. Since the methods are different, the fields, purposes, meanings and values ​​studied must be different. How to say which kind of “end” and which kind of “start”? The article still very much supports Booker Hart’s art history book, “Culture of the Renaissance.” "At the beginning of the last century, he became a human spirit Zhao highest scientific achievement and culture