‘At least 35 000 years’ - is a phrase often used to frame the timespan of how long people have been making objects we consider to be ‘art’.1 The cradle of art history as a discipline, however, can be traced back to seminal writings by Giorgio Vasari in the 1560s.2 Since then many thinkers have been writing about art, so that over the past 400 years so much has been written that thinkers started to question the validity of writings of others. They formulated their discourses and others criticised it, it is now at a stage when critics criticise criticism. Texts and words are discursive practices that give art its theoretical coating.3 Post-structuralist discourse that originated in 1970s criticises texts and words as such. This essay will outline challenges posed by post-structuralism on the ‘business- as-usual’ of art history. Due to the word limit, these challenges will be discussed in the light of writings of two post-structuralist thinkers, Foucault and Derrida. For the purposes of this essay I will use the term ‘business-as-usual’ of art history to mean what Linda Nochlin calls ‘normal’ art history, which implies historical interest, aesthetic quality and absence of re-evaluation of artwork’s politics use. As an example, iconology and iconography will be used.4 The essay argues that post- structuralism stands in the way of the progress of art historical discourse finding new horizons of unbiased, objective and thoughtful studies. The argument is that if in art history as a discipline priority is to be given to post-structuralist thought this would demolish the discipline as we know it.