For centuries, the study of art history has largely revolved around a Eurocentric canon—a set of works, artists, and movements deemed most important and influential by Western institutions and scholars. This canon has often privileged the art of Europe and North America, presenting the achievements of Western male artists as universal standards of excellence, while marginalizing or excluding the contributions of artists from non-Western regions, women, and other marginalized groups.

In recent decades, however, there has been growing recognition of the need to decolonize art history. Scholars, curators, and artists are increasingly questioning the narrow scope of the traditional canon, calling for a more inclusive and equitable understanding of global art. Decolonizing art history involves not only broadening the range of artists and artworks that are studied, but also rethinking the methods and perspectives through which art is analyzed, interpreted, and valued.
This article explores the process of decolonizing art history, examining the historical context that led to the formation of the Western art canon, the voices calling for change, and the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead as art historians, institutions, and artists work to reshape the discipline for the 21st century.


The Eurocentric Canon and Its Historical Foundations
The construction of the Western art canon can be traced back to the Renaissance, a period in European history marked by a renewed interest in the art, culture, and philosophy of ancient Greece and Rome. Renaissance humanists such as Giorgio Vasari, who wrote one of the first histories of Western art, laid the foundations for a narrative that centered on European art as the pinnacle of human achievement. Vasari’s “Lives of the Artists”, published in 1550, focused primarily on Italian painters, sculptors, and architects, and established many of the ideas that would shape the canon for centuries to come—namely, the notion that art progressed in a linear fashion, with each generation of artists building on the achievements of the previous one.
This linear, hierarchical view of art history was further cemented during the Enlightenment, when European scholars developed the concept of universal progress and applied it to various fields, including art. The idea that Western art represented the highest form of artistic achievement was codified in art academies, museums, and universities across Europe and North America. Institutions like the Louvre in Paris and the British Museum in London became symbols of European cultural supremacy, filled with treasures from around the world, often acquired through colonial conquest and imperial expansion.
By the 19th and 20th centuries, the dominance of Western art in the global narrative had become institutionalized. Art history textbooks, museum collections, and educational curricula focused overwhelmingly on European and North American artists, largely ignoring the artistic traditions of Africa, Asia, Oceania, and the Americas. The contributions of women artists and artists of color within the West were similarly marginalized or erased altogether.


The Call for Decolonization
The movement to decolonize art history is part of a broader global reckoning with the legacies of colonialism, racism, and patriarchy. In the context of art, decolonization involves challenging the assumptions and power structures that have shaped the discipline, and advocating for a more diverse and inclusive understanding of art and culture.
One of the key figures in this movement is Chika Okeke-Agulu, a Nigerian-born art historian and curator who has been a leading voice in advocating for the inclusion of African and African diaspora artists in the global art historical narrative. Okeke-Agulu argues that the exclusion of African artists from the canon is not simply a matter of oversight, but rather a consequence of the colonial mindset that viewed African art as primitive, and thus unworthy of serious study or consideration. In his book "Postcolonial Modernism", Okeke-Agulu traces the development of modern art in Africa, showing how African artists engaged with modernism on their own terms, rather than merely imitating Western styles.
Similarly, scholars such as Kavita Singh and Saloni Mathur have called attention to the ways in which Indian art and visual culture have been marginalized in art history. Singh, a professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi, has written extensively on the impact of colonialism on Indian art, highlighting how British colonial rule shaped the way Indian art was collected, exhibited, and understood. She argues that decolonizing art history requires not only expanding the canon to include non-Western artists, but also critically examining the ways in which colonialism influenced the very categories and concepts we use to study art.
Decolonization is also taking place within museums, where curators and administrators are rethinking how art is collected, displayed, and interpreted. The movement to return cultural artifacts looted during colonial rule has gained momentum in recent years, with institutions such as the British Museum and the Louvre facing increasing pressure to repatriate objects to their countries of origin.


Rethinking the Art Historical Framework
Decolonizing art history is not just about expanding the canon to include more diverse artists and artworks; it also requires rethinking the frameworks and methodologies that have long dominated the discipline. Traditional art historical analysis often privileges formal qualities—such as composition, color, and technique—over the social, political, and cultural contexts in which artworks are created. This approach has contributed to the marginalization of non-Western art, which is often rooted in cultural practices and belief systems that are not easily accommodated by formalist analysis.
For example, in many African cultures, art is deeply intertwined with ritual, religion, and community. Sculptures, masks, and textiles are not simply objects to be admired for their aesthetic qualities; they are imbued with spiritual significance and play an active role in the life of the community. By focusing solely on formal qualities, Western art historians have often overlooked the broader cultural significance of these works, reducing them to curiosities or artifacts rather than understanding them as living expressions of cultural identity.
A decolonized approach to art history must therefore be more attuned to the cultural, political, and historical contexts in which art is produced. This means embracing interdisciplinary methods that draw on anthropology, sociology, and postcolonial theory, among other fields. It also means recognizing that different cultures may have different ways of understanding and valuing art, and that these perspectives are just as valid as the formalist and aesthetic approaches that have dominated Western art history.


Challenges and Criticisms
While the call to decolonize art history has gained significant traction, the process is not without its challenges. One of the main criticisms of the decolonization movement is that it can sometimes lead to tokenism, with institutions and scholars adding a few non-Western artists to their collections or curricula without fundamentally changing the structures that have marginalized these artists in the first place. True decolonization requires more than just symbolic gestures; it demands a deep, sustained engagement with the legacies of colonialism and an honest reckoning with the ways in which art history has been complicit in upholding systems of power and oppression.
There is also the question of how to balance the inclusion of non-Western art with the recognition that not all cultures view art in the same way. Some critics argue that the Western concept of art itself is a colonial imposition, and that by attempting to "fit" non-Western art into Western categories, we risk perpetuating the very power dynamics that the decolonization movement seeks to dismantle. For instance, the categorization of objects from African, Oceanic, and Indigenous cultures as "primitive" or "tribal" in Western museums reflects a colonial hierarchy that privileges European art as the apex of artistic achievement.
Moreover, the global art market—driven by collectors, galleries, and auction houses—continues to exert significant influence over what is considered valuable and important in the art world. While there has been growing interest in non-Western art, this interest is often filtered through the lens of Western tastes and commercial considerations. As a result, some artists from marginalized backgrounds may find themselves pressured to conform to Western expectations in order to achieve success in the global market, raising questions about authenticity and the commodification of culture.


Decolonizing the Future
Despite these challenges, the movement to decolonize art history represents an important and necessary shift in the way we think about art and culture. By expanding the canon, rethinking traditional methodologies, and critically examining the role of colonialism in shaping the discipline, art historians and institutions are beginning to lay the groundwork for a more inclusive and equitable understanding of global art.
At the same time, artists themselves are playing a crucial role in this process, creating work that challenges dominant narratives and offers new perspectives on identity, history, and power. Many contemporary artists from formerly colonized regions are engaging directly with the legacies of colonialism in their work, using art as a means of reclaiming their histories and asserting their place in the global art world. Artists like El Anatsui, Wangechi Mutu, and Shahzia Sikander are creating works that bridge traditional and contemporary practices, challenging the boundaries between "high" and "low" art, and offering new ways of thinking about cultural exchange and hybridity.
Ultimately, decolonizing art history is not about erasing the past or rejecting the contributions of Western artists. Rather, it is about recognizing that the history of art is far richer, more diverse, and more complex than the traditional canon suggests. By opening up the discipline to new voices, perspectives, and methods, we can begin to build a more inclusive and dynamic understanding of art that reflects the full range of human creativity.

— Miranda Covington
Art Critic and Cultural The