《美術史十議》集結巫鴻自2006至2007年，為《讀書》雜誌撰寫專欄的十篇文章，談論他對藝術史學科當今發展的觀察與心得。
"Ten Discourses on Art History" collected ten articles that Wu Hung wrote for the special column in "Du Shu" magazine from 2006 to 2007. These were his observations and perceptions of current development of the subject of art history.
一 〝美術〞小議 The discussion of "mei shu"
巫鴻藉由此專欄「美術縱橫」的命名，試圖找出一個能夠充分詮釋目前美術史發展現象的詞彙。文中探討了「美術」、「視覺文化」與「圖像」的來源與定義，尤其是以西洋美術為基礎所建立起的藝術史學科，如何在觀念和方法上選用精確的詞彙，對應中國美術的種種現象。
By naming the special column "mei shu zong heng", Wu tried to find a word to fully explain current development phenomenon of art history. In this article, he investigated the origins and definitions of the terms "mei shu"(fine art), "visual culture" and "tu xiang"(image), and how to choose the accurate word on concepts and methods to correspond the phenomenons in Chinese art, especially from the subject of art history which based in western art.
儘管古代漢語很少使用「美」來形容藝術品，而且自宋代以來的藝壇主流文人畫派推崇「在意不在形」的非感官經驗，然而在二十世紀初革命革新的背景下，中國學者們採納轉譯自日文的「美術」一詞來代表西方語彙 "art"，在當時相當具有政治性和現代性的意義。但究竟「美術」是否可以涵蓋中國藝術自古至今的發展歷程，卻少有人探究。
The Chinese word "mei" (beauty) was rarely used to describe art works in ancient China, and the literary school which was the mainstream of Chinese art since Song dynasty appreciated the non-sensory experience that "artistic mood is more important than shape". In the background of revolution and innovation in the early 20th century , Chinese scholars borrowed the term "mei shu" from Japanese to represent the western word "art". It had considerable political significant and modernity at that time. But now, few people really probe that is the term "mei shu" suitable to include all the developments of Chinese art from ancient to nowadays or not.
巫鴻也承認，即使在西方，美術史本身的定義也不是固定而明確的，特別是近二、三十年新一代美術史學者對過去美術史研究的批判，他們從關注風格演變轉向對藝術品本身及其參與者和時代背景文化的分析研究，認為所有作品及觀念(包括「美術」fine art與「藝術家」artist等)都是在特定時空下的歷史現象。
Wu also recognized that even in the west, the definition of art history itself is not constant and clear. Especially in the past two or three decades, the new generation scholars' criticism of the art history study in the past, showed the transformation from the focus on the style evolution to the attention to artwork itself and analysis of relevant participants and culture background. They recognized all the works and concepts of art (including "fine art" and "artist") are historical phenomenons under particular time.
對美術史學科的重新檢視，使更多的視覺材料都成為美術史研究的對象，這些視覺材料遠超出過去對「藝術品」的認知，因此「跨學科」也成為近年來美術史研究的現象。此現象反映的一體兩面是，研究者定位及美術史學科的定義日漸模糊，但同時視覺形象成為各學科交匯互動的平台，能激發出新的議題和研究方法。
The review of art history made more visual material became the study object of art history. These visual material are far beyond the understanding of "artwork" in the past, and therefore the study of art history tends to be interdisciplinary in recent years. There are two sides of this status, one is the identification of researcher and the definition of art history become more blurred, but in the other hand, visual image also becomes a platform for subjects interacting that stimulates new research topics and methods.
在此巫鴻提出「視覺文化」一詞，試著描述當今的藝術史研究。他指出一派學者認為「視覺文化」可以擴展美術史的範圍與內涵，而更多學者則認為「視覺文化」與「美術史」是範圍有重疊但卻各自屬於不同的學術領域。巫鴻個人的觀點是，對視覺的研究興趣也是一種特殊的歷史現象，在中國美術中，並不是所有作品都是為了「觀看」而做，例如敦煌壁畫、墓葬藝術、古代禮器都有其創作的目的，但不是為了給人觀看。因此他認為「視覺文化」並不適合套用在所有美術史的研究對象上。
Here Wu Hung tried to use the term "visual culture" to describe the situation of nowadays art history research. He pointed out some of scholars agree the using of "visual culture" expands the scope and content of art history, while more scholars regard visual culture and art history just overlap in some part but belong to different academic fields essentially.
至於「圖像」與英文的"image"意義相仿，指人物形象的複製與再現。但巫鴻認為「圖像」一詞的涵蓋性更有限，只適合用於有寫實風格的繪畫與雕塑，卻無法處理風格以外的研究範圍。另一方面，「圖像」強調的是視覺形象，然而今日的美術史研究對藝術品的材質、呈現形式的關注更勝以往，因為透過這些非圖像的訊息比圖像更能決定藝術品的社會性、精神、文化與經濟價值。
As for "tu xiang", the meaning is similar to the English term "image", means the reduce and representation of figures or objects. But Wu Hung thought the inclusiveness of image is more limited only for realistic paintings and sculptures while it can't solve other problems except style. On the other hand, image is for visual image only but today's art history studies interest the materials and displayed forms of art works more than before, because these non-visual messages are more helpful for deciding the social, mental, cultural and economical values than image.
本文與其說是為當今美術史研究尋找代表性的詞彙，倒不如說是澄清美術史與現今流行的「視覺文化」研究和「圖像」研究之區別，讓讀者重新思考美術史研究的對象仍有範圍限制，然而研究觀點與方法早已突破以往單向直線的歷史觀。
This article is not so much looking a representative word for today's art history study, while it is more to clarify the difference between art history and today's popular study of "visual culture" and "image". It makes readers rethink that the objects of art history study are limited, however the study ideas and methods have already exceeded the previous one-way linear view of history.
