The European perspective has long dominated art history. Non-Western art is often only considered an influence on Europe, an anthropological object, or not considered at all. To fully understand art history, art from outside of Europe must be recognized and appreciated on its own terms.
Firstly, it’s important to note that many of the most celebrated European artists borrowed heavily from non-European traditions. Picasso’s signature style, for instance, was shaped by the stretched proportions and angular features of African masks. The art he created from this influence is today hailed as some of the greatest art of the 20th century. He wasn’t the only one; impressionists in the late 1800s, like Mary Cassatt, were inspired by the bold colors and strong, simple lines in Japanese woodblock prints. These aren’t footnotes in Western art history — they’re proof that European traditions do not exist in a vacuum. That said, the conversation can’t stop at influence. If non-European art is discussed only in terms of what it gave to Western artists, then its value is not truly being appreciated. Works of art from outside Europe stand on their own, with history, beauty, and significance that are independent of their impact on European art.
However, non-European art is often framed as something other than art: ritual objects, artifacts, or tools rather than masterpieces worthy of the same status as European artwork. Picasso’s African masks are rarely given the same recognition as Western sculptures, despite their astonishing craftsmanship. They are usually placed under the label of “cultural artifacts” instead. Native American baskets suffer the same treatment, despite containing a beautiful, complex language of shapes and patterns. Meanwhile, European art that serves a function — reliquaries, manuscripts, jewelry — is still considered part of the artistic canon. These labels are not applied evenly, and this inconsistency reflects a larger bias that devalues non-European works.
Part of the problem is the way art history is told. In most curricula, including the AP Art History course, the story of art is framed as a step-by-step evolution: Roman art laid the framework, followed by the medieval period, the Renaissance, Baroque, Romanticism, and finally, modern art. This story of a single path of progress is a myth. It ignores the important fact that other cultures developed similar or separate artistic traditions either before or alongside Europe. When European art is taught as the main event, other histories are erased.
This erasure happens on an individual level as well. There are countless famous Western artists, but single non-European artists often represent entire cultures. The average person has heard of Michelangelo, Vincent Van Gogh, and Rembrandt, but can they think of a Mexican artist who isn’t Frida Kahlo? Or a Japanese artist other than Hokusai? This is not proof that Kahlo or Hokusai are the only brilliant artists from their cultures. It’s proof that history is told in a way that makes it seem as if there aren’t any others.
One way to challenge these biases is to seek out museums that highlight art outside the Western tradition. For Bay Area residents, the de Young Museum in San Francisco is an excellent place to start. Its collection includes several galleries of Native American, Pacific Islander, and African art. Seeing pieces like these in person makes it clear that they hold incredible artistic merit and value. It is a small but meaningful step towards reshaping how art history is thought about and taught. It begins with looking, questioning, and recognizing what has been ignored for so long.
All in all, art should always be studied and appreciated in a global context rather than just in a Euro -centric scope. Non-European artists and their works should be given the same level of recognition, analysis, and respect as their European counterparts.