Abstract The # RhodesMustFall campaign that began at the University of Cape Town in early 2015, called for the decolonisation of South African university curricula, among other transformations. As a result, many South African academics are questioning the epistemologies that underpin their disciplines. What does the decolonisation of university curricula imply for disciplines in the humanities, art history among them, which were born at the time of colonial expansion and the categorising of knowledge that came with the enlightenment? In this paper I explore some implications of the decolonisation of art history for the ways in which we practise and write art history today. I begin by briefly exploring the origins of the discipline, in order to create a platform from which to consider contemporary art history writing. I then consider the ways in which the decolonisation of the discipline could be understood as the end of art history. A reflection of some of the affordances and limitations of the postcolonial rhetoric in which calls for decolonisation are framed, leads me to consider methods of writing art history that could be construed as acts of decolonisation. I conclude by suggesting that one way to decolonise the discipline is to foreground the author’s subjective voice when writing arts histories.

中文翻译：

---

艺术史已死；艺术史万岁！

摘要 # RhodesMustFall 运动于 2015 年初在开普敦大学开始，呼吁南非大学课程的非殖民化以及其他转型。因此，许多南非学者质疑支撑他们学科的认识论。大学课程的非殖民化对于在殖民扩张时期诞生的人文学科、其中的艺术史学科以及启蒙运动带来的知识分类意味着什么？在本文中，我探讨了艺术史非殖民化对我们今天实践和撰写艺术史的方式的一些影响。我首先简要地探索该学科的起源，以创建一个平台来考虑当代艺术史写作。然后我会考虑如何将学科的非殖民化理解为艺术史的终结。反映了要求非殖民化的后殖民修辞的一些启示和局限性，促使我考虑可以被解释为非殖民化行为的艺术史写作方法。最后，我建议对学科进行非殖民化的一种方法是在撰写艺术史时突出作者的主观声音。