符号学是艺术史方法论的热点之一。但国内对符号学艺术史的理解往往停留在解释作品的象征含义上。好像把“狗代表忠诚”说成能指或所指就是符号学了。其实这仅是图像志分析。结构主义符号学强调形象的语法分析;后结构主义符号学强调意义的流动性。另一方面受符号学刺激,米切尔等人提出了反符号学的主张,强调形象的生命和在场。然而学术史总是揭示出符号学不能完全解决形象问题,符号学家都潜在地暗示形象不是符号或不全是符号。另一方面反符号学研究也总是不得不在研究中使用符号学,不得不承认符号学的效用甚至模仿其范式。说双方“各 Semiology is one of the hot spots in the methodology of art history. However, the domestic understanding of the history of semiology often stays in the symbolic interpretation of the works. Seems to be ”dog on behalf of loyalty “ as a sign or means that is semiotics. In fact, this is only image analysis. Structuralist semiotics emphasizes the grammatical analysis of the image; post-structural semiotics emphasizes the fluidity of meaning. On the other hand, stimulated by semiotics, Mitchell et al put forward the idea of ​​anti-semiology and emphasized the life and presence of the image. However, academic history always reveals that semiotics can not completely solve the problem of image, and semioticians potentially imply that the image is not a symbol or incomplete. On the other hand, anti-semiotic studies always have to use semiotics in their research and have to admit the utility of semiology and even imitate their paradigm. Say both sides ”each