The Euro-Western history of art is still strongly focussed on its own cultural history, particularly in regard to architecture and urbanism. Publications on Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Indian, or Meso-American 'high' architecture or urban structures are still relatively scarce. This is incorrect insofar as many 'rationalistic' theories imply man in general in regard to their validity. Comparison of such claims with other cultures will very likely question such apriori assumptions fundamentally. Methods are widely Eurocentric, the concept of style is projected on non-European cultures.
Most conventional studies are merely descriptive, deal with their own-coined stylistic labels.
Genetic forces of documented styles are not questioned. A theory of art and architecture, insofar as it claims to be related to man in general, can only be valuable in a scientific way, if it theoretically includes the art and architecture of non-European 'high' cultures. They only know about dwelling in their own culture. Comparing non-European ways of dwelling and settling with European types opens the horizons in regard to what 'dwelling' and 'settling' really means in human life. It can show e.g. to what extent the Euro-Western concepts are abstracted from human life.