For the first time since 1871, the International Art History Congress was held on invitation at a museum. From the 15th to the 20th of July, 2012 the “Object” has been the focus of 21 sections and up to 400 lectures. The aim of the Congress was to discuss and redefine the object’s role and meaning as a basis and subject matter of art history.

Today’s media not only facilitates worldwide communication, but also the “virtualisation” of art history. What consequences does this have for the object itself? What chance and what risks ensue in the virtualisation of our profession? In addition to the virtualisation, we are also experiencing the extraordinary effect of the object itself. Long queues of visitors form to view one piece of art. During war, artworks are protected by international conventions, in particular the amount of damage they are exposed to. Ruined world-heritage sites, and also artwork that is taken hostage, belong to daily politics (looted art).

Up until now, art history has, notably in Europe, had European artwork in focus. Non-European art was often measured with other criterion. Methodical comparative research of artwork from different lands is sensible. How can such research be conducted in the future? Is there a line between a “High Culture”, in which art history is interested, and “Folk Culture”, toward which ethnology strives?

The sections of the 33rd International Art History Congress are structured around the questions in the dealings and the roles of the object, not on categories, epochs or continents. The fundamental approach of art history research of an object is not dependent on category, age or land of origin. We want, therefore, to compare and correlate similar questions and developments in cooperation with the different cultures, and determine the role of the object in the future of art history.

The paper argues that the contemporary social sciences and humanities are in a deep crisis, due to the prevalence of obscurantist arguments. Whereas many have denounced the “soft obscurantism” derived from what is sometimes called “French theory”, the “hard obscurantism” of many forms of mathematical and statistical social science also deserves to be singled out for criticism. The paper further argues that obscurantism does not merely represent a waste of intellectual effort, but has caused harm to countless individuals, ranging from parents of autistic children to market investors. Finally the paper considers some of the psychological mechanisms that may sustain obscurantism and constitute obstacles to overcoming it.

This paper is a review of Francisco Naishtat’s volume Action et Langage (Paris, 2010).