All that came to mind when I read the article was etymology:

"The origin and historical development of a linguistic form as shown by determining its basic elements, earliest known use, and changes in form and meaning, tracing its transmission from one language to another, identifying its cognates in other languages, and reconstructing its ancestral form where possible."

language also evolves, words do change their meaning, therefore can the common usage of the word modern be considered incorrect?

Sorry, swallowed a dictionary tonight, I just find language fascinating.

Well, there is a specific are of time refered to as the "modern era" in art and design, however if you look up the word 'modern' in the dictionary, it defines it as :

1 a : of, relating to, or characteristic of the present or the immediate past : contemporary b : of, relating to, or characteristic of a period extending from a relevant remote past to the present time

I think they are just being picky over semantics.

I've noticed that in fashion-speak, "modern" means "of the current moment" (and, by extension, not of a moment that was three or five or ten seasons ago). If we were wearing truly "modern" attire, we'd be stuck in the fashions of say, 1915. Paul Poiret (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Poiret) was a great guy in the world of fashion, but I'd hate to wear his hobble skirt right now!

Interesting piece. It seems that it's really about the lens in which you view the design. If you're thinking about it a contributing to an art then the use of modern would be incongruous since modern connotes a movement. If that's not how you view the work, then modern would not have that connotation.