Strayer does not write about the historical art contributions in the context towards establishing facts. The reason is usually because this is not an art history class. What is bizarre are not exclusive in all art history classes, they are a blended entity. In Strayer's book, he does have a few images in each period to give readers a visual display of historical reflections, but no significant artistic value. Again, in an art history class we are required to identify the historical and artistic values together. I always have problems not including to establish the studio art, biography of the artistic in their mission statement, compelling artist to make the piece of art. All of these issues are addressed in an art writing class learning to write about art, not art history. This can get confusing to anyone who is not an art major, uh? I am a Fine Art major, going to continue on with the Art Therapy Master's Program after graduation in December.