The two focal points of art history debate are“decentralization”and“separation from the history of images”. The history of art history reflects on the central model of each specific art history study, seeking to avoid or improve its various centralisms in terms of nationality, category, age, style, etc. A methodological revolution of a decentralized general art history that transcends art categories must begin with the critique and transcendence of various borders. Art history research not only requires rich experience and interpretation skills, but also needs to jump out of the single perspective as much as possible, to establish the knowledge of art history from a transcendent perspective, and to let the“chaos”of art enter the“universe”. With the emergence of industrial images, art history and image history were separated, and industrial images created ubiquitous forms, bringing unprecedented image accumulation and dissemination in art history. But in an art history that thoroughly implements the intention of“decentralization”, art seems to return to“chaos”from the “cosmos”. So the art history is only the history of images. Is it possible to write an art history after the“end of art”?