本文是對哈齊尼可拉之《藝術史與階級鬥爭》一書的評介，共分為三個部分。第一個部分，指出本書作者的問題意識在於：藝術史的主題是什麼？其與階級鬥爭的關係為何？但是，筆者以為，哈齊尼可拉在閱讀視覺文本時存著一個靜態觀點；於是開展了筆者的問題意識：這個靜態觀點形成的認識模型是什麼？在梳理分析對象時，對其論點的影響為何？第二個部分，簡介該書，前半段筆者以阿圖賽的寫作方式為比對，研究哈齊尼可拉建構理論的方法論。後半段，筆者認為本書建構的重要理論就在於：以唯物的「意象化意識形態」以取代唯心的「風格」，以「圖書生產的歷史就是意象化意識形態的歷史」取代「藝術史就是風格史」；最後，指出哈齊尼可拉的關鍵性疏忽是在於對「符徵╱符旨」的多重關係未加梳理，而一個嚴苛的科學式定義化約了其連結的多重方式，而成為單一的絕對關係；迫使其在圖書分析時，滑入了「表意過程」的單一意義。第三部份，旨在指出《藝術史與階級鬥爭》一書中理論建構與應用之間的斷裂。我要闡明此一斷裂並非來自於其分析對象之「具象藝術」與「抽象藝術」的差異，而是來自於：哈齊尼可拉的靜態觀點，在表意過程的兩側起了作用，共同形成其認識論上的「象徵模型」。其作為分析部分具象圖畫的特殊性時，破綻恰巧被主題遮掩，問題並不大，但在分析一般性的圖畫生產過程時，需要再謹慎處理。

　　　　　This is a review article about Art History and Class Struggle which was written by Nicos Hadjinicolaou. It contains three parts. In the first part, the author's problematique was introduced: "What is the subject-matter of the art history? How to relate to the class struggle?" After criticizing Hadjinicolaou's static viewpoint, I developed a new problematique: "What is the epistemological model formed by such viewpoint? What will be the consequence it caused?" In the second part, a brief introduction to the book was given, including a comparison between Hadjinicolaou's and Louis Althusser's methodology. Coming to a conclusion that the main theory was constructed on a substitution of idealistic "style" by materialistic "imaged ideology", and a substitution of "art history is the history of styles" by "the history of production of pictures is the history of imaged ideology"; and finally identifying a key negligence made by Hadjinicolaou-he careless analyzed the complicated relation between "signifier/signified", but applied a strict scientific definition and then to form a singular connection, so that the "signification" few into one absolute meaning. The third part was intended to show a break between Hadjinicolaou's theory and his application: its source was the static viewpoint that was working the both sides of the signification and resulted in the forming of a "symbolic epistemological model".