摘要
对于"图像证史"应采取审慎态度,但思路不在于如何通过认识图像自身的特性来正确补充历史叙述而避免掉入"陷阱"。图像进入历史并非是以何种方式对历史学(文字-历史)进行扩充,而是其进入造成了一种穿破和批判。图像的运动性、脆弱性、非线性、暧昧性等特点,对线性的、知识的、叙述的历史本身产生质疑、批判和穿透打碎的作用。这里,图像-历史不是延续和扩展既定的历史模型,而是由于这种联结和进入使得历史模型本身受到质疑。图像-历史也许提供了在"历史2"(历史学、历史叙述)之外的另一种"历史3",帮助我们触摸神秘、幽深的历史本身("历史1",历史事实)。
We need to take a cautious attitude towards using images as historical evidence, but it is not in the idea of how to correctly supplement the historical narrative through understanding the characteristics of the image itself rather than falling into the "trap". This paper attempts to put forward the concept of "image-history". It insists that the entry of image into history does not simply expand the field of history(word-history), but causes a kind of penetration and criticism. The movement, vulnerability, non-linearity and ambiguity of image play a role in questioning, criticizing and penetrating the linear, intellectual and narrative history itself. Here, image-history is not to continue and expand the established historical model, but because of this connection and entry, the historical model itself is questioned. Image-history may provide another kind of "history Ⅲ" besides "history Ⅱ"(word-history, historical narration), which helps us touch the mysterious and profound history itself("History Ⅰ", historical facts).
出处
《探索与争鸣》
CSSCI
北大核心
2020年第3期108-115,195,F0003,共10页
Exploration and Free Views
关键词
图像证史
图像
历史
《点石斋画报》
潜能
于贝尔曼
use images as historical evidence
image
history
Dianshizhai Pictorial
potential
George Didi-Huberman
作者简介
唐宏峰,北京大学艺术学院研究员。(北京100871)。
