ABSTRACT
The question posed by the seminar and book's title itself is global, sprawling and boundless, not just for its scope but for its ambiguity. 1 Does it ask if art history is globally practiced, or that its theory is relevant for all times and climes on this planet? Is art history the name for the writings of people with a certain training in universities done in different material and institutional circumstances, whether in Ghana or Denmark; or is it a set of emplotments and rhetorical moves developed in the nineteenth century (periodizing, classifying, and so on); or is it a grand Eurocentric narrative currently being asked to show global relevance for all past and future arts? Are all these elements interconnected, so that the definition of any implicates the definition of all? Or should we count as “art history” only the high theory and deep analysis of respected and university-trained art historians, ignoring the art-writing and art-history speak by dealers, curators, and educational sites of public culture?
