afternoon dust

dance & aesthetics, mostly

Slip of the tongue

A recent BBC article about the purchase of a work by Pieter Brueghel the Younger mistakenly referred to the painting as an “Old Master”. In art history jargon, the term “Old Master” refers to an artist, not to art works.

Does art history need to lose the jargon in order to remain relevant? Does art history want/need to remain relevant?

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: