All of these examples show that there is no linear narrative of art, rather the construction of even so-called periods between different nations and periods lies in the mind of the beholding academic, not in some universal truth of what is art's history. Critics also have their own abysses, and their own sands of what seems familiar and unfamiliar. Even art periodization is subjective as art, it is not a science, and thus periods should not be taught as absolute standards and markers of art history. Furthermore, other nations such as China have had different histories and different conceptions of what constitutes making art altogether, as well as different forms of periodization as a result. Western art's periods have been much more dynamic, and more characterized by seismic revolutions in aesthetics, as opposed to other nations. There is more blurring between what art is, and what has a practical religious or useful purpose in other...

For example, in China, the actual production of art has a spiritual purpose, producing the art is not an end in and of itself (Elkins 114).
While Elkins raises many valid objections, the problem with Elkins' concept of stories of art can be so solipsistic it offers no guidance or structure at all, which so many introductory students crave. He also seems to place very little faith in students' ability to understand that a professor's overview is not absolute, and will have some exceptions. One possibility, of course, is to have introductory courses to Western Art, rather than to bracket certain cultures' arts within survey course, which might answer some of his objections. But it would be impossible to construct a discipline around a series of isolated, personal topographies of art, as even what constitutes art varies so much from culture to culture, individual to individual.