My understanding is when referring to Anachronic time, that the object is referenced by the interaction of a human being. Which would mean it is constantly being slotted into many times, or "ever-changing"what individual histories are brought to an inanimate object..."it relies on a critique of the subject/object distinction, while nevertheless maintaining it for heuristic reasons. In order better to understand how both objects and images intrude on our consciousness and initiate an exchange, we need to blur the distinction between “us” and “them.” (27)

My question is could today's highly virtual world of exhibitions and viewing works of art, be considered more in line with the idea of Heterochrony, time existing in multiplie forms and locations?

This reminds me of the infamous Robert Rauschenberg "Erased de Kooning Drawing" from 1953, and the notions of permanence. By removing as much of the original artists marks, what remained still showed the ghosts and reversal of the image. This re-creation now becomes a part of art histories discussion around artist value as well. Who is the artist of the work, or is the credit shared? The label on the matted frame was added by Jasper Johns, now the narrative and labour of the work incorporates three artists and a timeline spanning from 1951 (first created by de Kooning - 1953 when it was framed and presented as something new.

https://www.sfmoma.org/artwork/98.298/

This statement brings to mind the works of minimalist artists working in the 1960s (predominately) and creating work that in its nature is simplistic, repetitive, and duplicated, and activated by engagement with the viewer.

When considering the questions posed by Kernbauer; within the canon of art histories chronology, artist Donald Judd in the early 1960s began creating works from galvanized steel (referred to as "Stacks") which questioned what is considered art? Placed in the setting of a gallery begs interpretations and comparisons to be made within that institutional context.

How is this slotted into the chronological history and narrative of art, if the artists themselves are attempting to challenge that conversation?

This statement seemed appropriate to the context of this reading "It would be easy to accuse Judd of calculated ambition, to say he was less interested in making art than in making art history. But it might be more accurate to say that he enlisted art history – or criticism – to make art. His practice was a Minimalist version of Modernist contrarianism. Even more than the specific objects, smart thinking gave him claim to originality.

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathonkeats/2020/09/25/a-moma-retrospective-reveals-how-donald-judd-reinvented-sculpture-by-reverse-engineering-art-history/?sh=2899678f5511])