I interpreted the author's hypothetical future to be an extension of post-modern ideals. It would be weird to call all of art history up to that point of suppos

I interpreted the author's hypothetical future to be an extension of post-modern ideals. It would be weird to call all of art history up to that point of supposed enlightenment "post-modern". The irony of the article I was trying to point out is that even if there is a future where all media and styles are equally respected and not held as having any intrinsic value, historians will still need to come up with terms to describe the past and present; and whatever those terms actually are, they'll likely imply a narrative of progress.