Of the many articles about the re-opening of the Warburg Institute, I have found the one by Matthew Bowman in the Art Review (see below) the most helpful as to why there is such a revival of Warburg’s ideas at the moment. 

What Bowman helpfully makes clear is that the two most obvious disciples of Warburg, Panofsky and Gombrich, actually very much skewed the way he was interpreted in the post-war period: Panofsky because he treated iconography (or as he called it ‘iconology’), as in some way a science, as if the transmission of images could be tracked, whereas Warburg’s Mnemosyne Atlas was much less precise in the way it traced influence; and Gombrich was always felt to be ambivalent, if not hostile, to Warburg’s belief in the subterranean, if not subversive, aspects of Renaissance thought. 

Gombrich is viewed as a disciple of Warburg, but he only arrived in London in January 1936, so learned about Warburg’s ideas from Gertrud Bing and Ernst Kris.

Anyway, it’s good that Warburg’s ideas and his Institute are now, as of today, more centre stage.

https://artreview.com/its-art-historian-aby-warburgs-world-were-just-living-in-it/