乔治·迪迪-于贝尔曼是当代法国著名艺术史家、哲学家，他的艺术研究旨趣主要在于反对笼统的“综合统一”、固化的主客关系结构和目的论等级，拒绝线性的进步史观，主张回到流动、变化、具体的关系之中。图像与历史的关系问题是他艺术理论研究的重要方面，主要可以分为两个部分：

在前期艺术史与图像哲学研究中，迪迪-于贝尔曼对图史关系进行了哲学重构，包括三个方面：一是，以“症状”为核心的图史关系知识生产模式。迪迪-于贝尔曼把图像建构为一种“症状”结构，并由此提出“撕裂”的图像知识方法，以及图像“刺伤”历史的知识生成方式。二是，以“错时性”为核心的图史关系时间模式。迪迪-于贝尔曼认为，应当从错时性角度思考图像时间与历史时间，以异质时间性为特征的错时性可以呈现图像的多元时间模式，并且能够让构成图像的错时性元素辩证化。三是，以“记忆”为核心的图史关系心理机制。“记忆”这一心理机制是推动图史关系表征的重要动力，对图史关系的探究不能只从过去的客观事实入手，还应着重考虑主观记忆以及它作为痕迹和复现的运动。

在转向历史问题之后，迪迪-于贝尔曼对大屠杀、战争、起义等历史事件及其与图像的关系进行了分析，并且运用了之前哲学重构中的理论与方法。首先，在“大屠杀”问题上，迪迪-于贝尔曼借助奥斯维辛集中营特遣队拍摄的照片以及戈达尔的电影，反驳了思想界由来已久的“不可想象”观念。面对过度操纵历史图像造成的“记忆的饱和”难题，他利用法罗基的电影重建了图像的“可读性”。他还回到奥斯维辛遗址这个历史现场，在“物”与“记忆”之间建立了联系。其次，关于“战争”问题，迪迪-于贝尔曼主要采取“蒙太奇”的方法进行分析。瓦尔堡的“记忆女神图集”和布莱希特的“照片-短诗”呈现的蒙太奇，展现了战争图像的多重位置、多样姿态和复杂知识；但是，戈达尔的公式化蒙太奇导致复杂的历史境况变得扁平。最后，在“起义”问题上，迪迪-于贝尔曼先是通过展览呈现了作为起义视觉形式的“姿态”，而后借助爱森斯坦的影像探讨了从情感到行动的起义过程，并且进一步从“潜能”角度挖掘了起义背后的动力机制。

总体上看，迪迪-于贝尔曼探索了一种不同于线性、再现、目的论的传统图史关系，他回到图像与历史的内在性和独特性，揭示了重要历史事件未被认识的方面。他的这些观点与方法为我们解决其他图史关系问题提供了可借鉴的新路径。

Georges Didi-Huberman, a renowned contemporary French art historian and philosopher, primarily engages in art research with the aim of opposing the vague notion of “synthesis and unity,” the solidified structure of subject-object relation, and teleological hierarchies. He rejects linear progressivist historiography, advocating a return to the fluid, changing, and concrete relations. The relation between image and history is a significant aspect of his theoretical exploration in art, broadly divided into two parts:

In the early phase of art history and the philosophy of image, Didi-Huberman philosophically restructured the relation between image and history, focusing on three aspects: Firstly, the knowledge production model of the relation between image and history centered on the “symptom.” Didi-Huberman constructs images as a “symptomatic” structure, from which he proposes a “déchirer” method of image knowledge and a way of knowledge production where images “blesser” history. Secondly, the temporal model of the relation between image and history centered on “anachronism.” He believes that the temporal aspect of image and historical time should be considered from the perspective of anachronism. The heterochrony characteristic of anachronism can reveal the multiple temporal modes of image and dialectically process the elements of anachronism permeating images. Thirdly, the psychological mechanism of the relation between image and history centered on “memory.” This mechanism is a crucial driving force in the manifestation of images and history, where the exploration cannot solely start from past objective facts but must also consider subjective memory and its movement as traces and reenactments.

After turning to historical issues, Didi-Huberman analyzed the relation between historical events such as the Holocaust, war, and uprising and their images, applying theories and methods from his philosophical reconstruction. Firstly, on the issue of the Holocaust, Didi-Huberman, using photos taken by the Auschwitz Sonderkommando and films by Jean-Luc Godard, refuted the enduring notion in the intellectual community of the “unimaginable.” Facing the challenge of “saturation of memory” caused by the excessive manipulation of historical images, he utilized Harun Farocki’s films to rebuild the “readability” of Holocaust images. He also returned to the Auschwitz site, establishing a connection between “object” and “memory.” Secondly, regarding the issue of “war,” Didi-Huberman primarily adopted the “montage” method for analysis. The montage presented in Aby Warburg’s Mnemosyne Atlas and Bertolt Brecht’s “photo-epigrams” revealed the multiple positions, diverse gestures, and complex knowledge of war images, unveiling the complexity and multiplicity of historical appearances; whereas Godard’s formulaic montage rendered complex historical situations flat. Lastly, on the issue of “uprising,” Didi-Huberman first discussed the “gesture” as a visual form of uprising through an exhibition, then explored the process of uprising from emotions to actions with the help of Sergei Eisenstein’s images, further investigating the driving mechanism behind uprising from the perspective of “potentiality.”

Overall, Didi-Huberman explores a relation between image and history that diverges from traditional linear, representational, and teleological approaches. He returns to the immanence and singularity of image and history, uncovering aspects of significant historical events that have not been recognized. His ideas and methods offer new paths for addressing other issues about the relation between image and history.