本文旨在揭示達彌施論繪畫表達徵候的觀點。面對十九世紀末、二十世紀初的繪畫變革，達彌施提出了繪畫表達徵候的界定問題，從而指出徵候並非所見特徵，更無絕對定義，而是在不同理論思考模式之間的空隙。透過辯證探討「徵候」和理論概念的關係，輔以實際例子，達彌施勾勒了「徵候」的樣貌。其所用提問有三：其一，「表達的『再現』面發生什麼變化？」；其二，「表達的『形式』面發生什麼變化？」；最後，「徵候開展的路徑是什麼？」這一系列的探測不只重新定位了十九世紀末至二十世紀繪畫變革的要旨，更重要的是，從中發現了繪畫表達實踐和分析表達的分析思考更為接近的地位。

The purpose of this essay is to pinpoint Damisch’s theoretical perspective in his treatise on painterly expression and its “symptom”. In his account of the historical turns in painting during the late 19th century to the early 20th century, Damisch raises the idea of a “symptom” at play. Hence pointing out that “symptom” does not equal features presented to the eye, nor does it possess an absolute definition. Instead, “symptom” stands for the very gap between modes of thought. Thus, Damisch outlines “symptom” through a series of dialectical inquiries, investigating its relation to certain theoretical concepts. In this essay, I will elaborate on the three investigations applied by Damisch, which are: (1)“What is at stake in the field of ‘representation’ of expression?” (2)“What is at stake in the field of ‘form’?” (3) “What further development does this ‘symptom’ lead to?” It is shown that these investigations do not merely reinterpret the significance of the historical turn of painting during the late 19th century to the early 20th century, but also bring together the act of painting and that of discursive analysis, amplifying their resemblance.