East Asian art is noted, when compared to Western designs to put much less emphasis on notions of grandeur, instead focusing on spiritual messages and intrinsic (traditional) values.

This can be seen also in comparisons of their architecture. This, it is argued is because the focus of their architecture is not on the physical details but often relies on the setting and interaction with the natural environment for their value and placing less emphasis on permanence of the original building.

__

• Chung SJ (2005) East Asian Values in Historic Conservation, Journal of Architectural Conservation, Vol.11 No.1, pp.55-70
• Graham B (2002) Heritage as Knowledge: Capital or Culture, Urban Studies, Vol.39 No.5, pp.1003-1017

Can I expand this question to include middle eastern art such as this painting by the Ottomans? Their art is always pretty "unrealistic" looking

I recommend reading these comments by /u/webby686 and /u/farquier about the cultural context of art:

• In answer to the question "Why does some historical art look so bad?" /u/webb686 leads off with "The way people read and interpret images is culturally learned, and the function of images was not always to create an illusion of deep space."
• To answer the question "Why did realistic art only take off in the West?" /u/farquier argues that European art is equally unrealistic and that we simply have conventions for understanding it that we understand and expect. This answer also quotes 18th century Japanese artist Shiba Kokan explaining how to view Western art.