Author: Cao Fangfang (Lecturer at the School of Art, Peking University) Since the 21st century, with the continuous introduction of new research theories and models, the perspective of art history research has become increasingly open. In the past, art history research based on visual, aesthetic, and style disciplines has entered a broader field of humanities, history, and social science research. Although new models and technologies have greatly expanded the boundaries of art history research, and art history has gradually entered the "public domain" and become "popularized", this deep integration and cross-border has also led to new problems in art history research - the core of art history is blurred, research is generalized, and it tends to converge with peer disciplines. For a discipline, excessive cross-border activities can easily lead to gradual loss, resulting in mediocrity and retreat of the discipline, and art history becoming increasingly unrelated to "art". The urgent task in the study of Chinese art history is to continue existing academic traditions while also doing a good job of upholding integrity. Chen Shizeng wrote in "History of Chinese Painting" that art history is a science that studies the occurrence, development, and laws of human art. In 1844, the first Art (Fine Arts) History Chair was established at the University of Berlin, and in the mid-19th century, the discipline of Art History was established in universities in German speaking countries. As a renowned scholar in the study of art history, American German art historian Pankowski wrote "The History of Art as a Humanities", which elucidates the sources of humanistic concepts and basic working methods in modern art history, that is, the research ideas and methods based on artists and works of art, with aesthetic judgment and style analysis as the disciplinary characteristics, thus outlining the appearance of art history, art trends, and art schools. This research method has gone through a hundred years and has become a magnificent sight, becoming the basic method of art history research. The mission and function of art history cannot be achieved without the essence of art. All research directions and methods in art history must revolve around the essence of art, whether it is traditional methods or borrowing or referencing other humanities and social science methods. But now, some interdisciplinary studies of art history actually use art to study history. Art is the means and bridge of research, rather than the starting point and destination of research, which has also caused some problems. Firstly, this study of art history is relatively detached from the essence of art, and at the same time, it deviates from the original intention of art history research, weakening the theoretical basis of the discipline of art history. If there is no relatively clear disciplinary boundary, how can we talk about interdisciplinary studies? Secondly, this new trend of art history research neglects the ontology and epistemology of art history, and instead excessively focuses on methodology, micro research, and lacks macro research in art history. Again, such interdisciplinary art research often fails to deeply understand the techniques, connotations, and implications of art itself. Therefore, most of them revolve around the periphery of the art itself, rather than studying the essence of the art work itself. Each discipline has its own mission and goals, and art history can intersect with cultural history, intellectual history, and social history, but should not become a subsidiary tool of those disciplines. The study of art history must adhere to its own disciplinary characteristics and goals - ontology research is the mainstream, the backbone, the subject, and the right path. Here, I particularly want to talk about the inspiration of archaeology for the study of art history. Modern