More accurately still, what I study is works of art, and what I profess is, therefore, how to study and understand works of art in our cultural heritage. Art historians organize works of art through the centuries historically, era by era, culture by culture. But when we study them chronologically, we have a chronicle of artists and their works rather than history of art. History of art, or art history, suggests that art has a history. Though this idea has been taken for granted since the dawn of the discipline, it is decidedly an imprecise idea.
Art is a concept encompassing a range of works of art.
We can study changing concepts of art, that is to say, changing notions as to what artifacts in a given culture constitute art. We are then dealing with history of ideas, not of works of art. To become an art historian, we were schooled in art history. So, perhaps there is, but I've lost sight of it. More recently, art historians' interest shifted from style to historical contexts of art.