The canon of art history – the sanctioned selection of artists and artworks considered as the greatest and most significant – has been the object of much criticism in the contemporary art discourse. Indeed, for many scholars and practitioners, the term “canon” has come to acquire a negative connotation because of its systematic exclusion and under-representation of artists who are not Western white males – that is, artists of both genders working outside of the so-called Western world (by now a cultural more than strictly geographical designation), as well as women artists and artists of color in the West. This criticism is undoubtedly one of the reasons that use of the term “canon” is on the wane in discussions of contemporary art. But it is important to note that whether or not the term is applied, and despite some changes toward inclusiveness, the traditional (Western) art canon still proves to be resilient. Even when curators, critics and scholars do not use the term explicitly, they continue to refer with other words to what the term “canon” traditionally means. For example, sociologists and some art historians now use Pierre Bourdieu’s term “consecration” instead of “canonization” or else expressions like the “rankings” and “degree of centrality” of artists.1 Gallerists speak of “historically significant” art and of the artist who “is making history” and remains “historically relevant.”2 As art critic Tim Griffin notes, today artists themselves inscribe their art within histories and, thus, within canons.3