What are the representative architectures from here
Taj Mahal
Chand Baori (stepwell), Abhaneri, Rajasthan
And uh...
Uhh...
What are the representative architectures from here. Taj Mahal. Chand Baori (stepwell), Abhaneri, Rajasthan. And uh... Uhh...
There are a lot of nice looking giant temples in the south, but I can't remember the names of any because I cant speak Pajeet
whats the term for those colorful temple tower tihngs
It's quite ironic that the most significant architecture in India is actually Islamic Persian in origin and has nothing to do with Pajeets.
Not only that, but most of the features we normally associate with "Indian" architecture - such as domes, marble, glazed tiling, true arches, corbelled arches, crenellations, vaulting, jalis (netted windows), voussoirs, chhatris (domed pavilions) - are all derived from Islamic Turco-Persian architecture.
That's why Hindus want to destroy the Taj Mahal
>has nothing to do with Pajeets.
Cope harder Paki. 22,000+ laborers/slaves who constructed the Taj Mahal were Indians.
>>Cope harder Paki. 22,000+ laborers/slaves who constructed the Taj Mahal were Indians.
>poos were slaves to mudslimes to glorify allah
not making ur case
>has nothing to do with Pajeets
>it turns out Pajeets constructed it
>muh allahu ackbar
we wuz slaves n shiet
I mean, Pajeets are a naturally submissive, docile, and servile race. It's no wonder their entire history consists of them bending over and spreading their shit-encrusted asscheecks for whatever foreign invader decided to conquer India next. The most they can do is seethe about it online, lmfao.
Your whole religion is based on being a slave to a deceptive demon.
But they (the israelites) were deceptive, and Allah was deceptive, for Allah is the best of deceivers (Wamakaroo wamakara Allahu waAllahu khayru al-makireena)! S. 3:54; cf. 8:30
The architecture is 100% Persian, and the architects, engineers, and planners were all foreign Muslims. Pajeets being unskilled slave labor doesn't really mean anything. Most American buildings since the 1970s were actually built by cheap Mexican construction workers, doesn't make that Mexican architecture.
well thats a far way from ur original statement that it had "nothing" to do with poos
You've been really deprived. Dravidian architecture is some of the best. There are about 1500 rock-cut structures in India, some of which are HUGE. I haven't found anything else like it in the world.
this is actually kinda cool in itself but
>Black person caves
what makes this dravidian architecture good anon
>Black person caves
Okay Black person. Let's you scuplt anything at all.
Do some reading, I can't post every example here. Pretty much every South Indian dynasty produced beautiful temples. I think it's what this guy
was talking about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dravidian_architecture
better. i like these.
i disagree with anon, and art philosophy is ambiguous here
what makes the taj mahal better supposedly? better put, what are the advantages of each style of architecture?
>what makes the taj mahal better supposedly?
It can fit in a single image, and because it's symmetrical, you don't need a second angle to appreciate it properly. The cave structures are extremely complex. Ellora ought to be distinguished between Kailash temple and the other chambers, and Kailash alone is worth appreciating as much as Taj Mahal. It's closer to a site like Pompeii, which also can't be engaged with in a single image.
I'm going to be real with you, compared to monuments like the Taj Mahal, this looks incredibly primitive and Black person-tier.
>Taj Mahal
Constructed by Pajeets. Cope.
I guess reading must be hard when you have a national IQ lower than Afghanistan and Somalia, but see
Definition of construct
1: to make or form by combining or arranging parts or elements
Point remains. Pajeets constructed the Taj Mahal. Taking credit does not mean you constructed it. Now cope and seethe.
Who gives a frick about the Taj Mahal? What do you people have against "Black person" caves anyway? Like your so much more advanced shoving mcdonalds in your face. These are at most 1000 years older than the Taj Mahal, and have actual religious significance instead of being a dumb tourist trap.
>Who gives a frick about the Taj Mahal?
Literally every tourist who visits your shithole country, I guess it must be one of the few places worth seeing there.
>What do you people have against "Black person" caves anyway?
They look primitive and ugly. If you actually want to see stone architecture done right, take a look at ancient Egypt. They crafted stone temples and monuments that were FAR bigger, more elegant, and more advanced compared to these shitty Pajeet rock carvings.
>Like your so much more advanced shoving mcdonalds in your face.
I am. My country (USA) has a GDP per capita that is 30x that of India. Now cope.
>These are at most 1000 years older than the Taj Mahal, and have actual religious significance instead of being a dumb tourist trap.
Roman, Greek, Chinese, and Old Persian architecture is even older than this, and looks way better.
>They look primitive and ugly.
kailasa temple is not primitive tbh--it has straight intersecting lines, complex and intricate pattern setting, detailed representative sculpture, and intricate ornamentation. i listened to anon, and the fact that it was hewn from a single mass of volcanic rock makes it even more impressive.
its beauty value is debatable. if God exists (and he does), then its true that islams allah is closer to God's harmony and order than hinduisms semi-barbarism, and that would make the taj mahal's implicit architectural philosophy and execution aesthetically superior from an objective reference point. indeed, God's the only possible coherent source for objective aesthetics. if God doesnt exist, then theres no objective source for beauty and morality, and then beauty and taste would be relative, and reasons for judging beauty subjective.
>It can fit in a single image, and because it's symmetrical, you don't need a second angle to appreciate it properly.
this is a very subjective judgment. first, this speaks a lot about the limitations of 2d human vision, and less about the nature of architecture. second, a work of art doesnt strictly require a central focal point to be good or better, though that does have some strengths. and a symmetrically tighter work isn't automatically better, otherwise shitty postmodern geometrical sculpture would be de facto superior to old art, but as sensible posters, we all know implicitly that pomo art is worse.
>this speaks a lot about the limitations of 2d human vision, and less about the nature of architecture
Well, because that's how everyone is engaging with this supposedly 3D building with interiority. Taj Mahal is only appreciated for it's exterior from one (1) angle. That's not necessarily good or bad, but it means that it's easily transferable to an image, which is different than a building.
>that pic
Bro, I'm sorry but this looks incredibly primitive and nowhere near as good as the Taj Mahal (or other monuments like it). I mean look at this shit:
>everything is the same ugly shit-brown color
>uneven roughly carved rock
>floor is uneven
>no natural light
>no lanterns or chandeliers
>ugly square blocky columns with no decoration
>edges are uneven everywhere
It was carved into a mountain over 1000 years ago. Taj Mahal is in the middle of a metropolis.
>no natural light
>no lanterns or chandeliers
What are you even talking about man?
Look, I'm sorry but it's true, this really is not aesthetically appealing in any way. I mean look at it. It's fricking ugly. The same ugly grey-brown color everywhere. It looks like a primitive temple you would find in a sub-Saharan African jungle or a Mayan jungle.
>Look, I'm sorry but it's true, this really is not aesthetically appealing in any way. I mean look at it. It's fricking ugly. The same ugly grey-brown color everywhere.
okay youre moronic. like
posted your criticism dont hold up to scrutiny.
is the same ugly shit-brown color
meme, color is subjective
roughly carved rock
its pretty even esp for something exposed to the elements for centuries. are the pyramids and roman ruins shit for being weathered?
is uneven
above
>>no natural light
srsly?
>>no lanterns or chandeliers
this is getting autistic
>>ugly square blocky columns with no decoration
okay this is somewhat of a fair point. it clashes with the rest when it could 100% have enhanced the rest of the work. and theyve had a long time to alter it. at the same time the structures are peripheral and dont have to be complex.
are uneven everywhere
they were sharper originally, and painted with white plaster. its hardly a deal breaker when eventually the taj mahal will also weather down.
>Taj Mahal is only appreciated for it's exterior from one (1) angle.
>only
no, my favorite perspective of it is from a slight side angle
i dont know why anon was using image/picture arguments for works in the architectural medium. does NG and other publications use this single perspective meme? its idiotic tb h.
Nobody here has ever been to Taj Mahal, and nobody has talked about the interior. In fact, nobody should be talking about Taj Mahal. It sucks.
>Muh marble onion with sticks is better than intricately carved stones
Whether it's buildings sculpted into the sides of mountains, or constructed pieces or architecture... why must we fight? Millions of people throughout time went through the effort and labor of designing, constructing, maintaining, and even living in them. Can't we just appreciate the beauty that is the ability of man to create?
>I am. My country (USA) has a GDP per capita that is 30x that of India. Now cope.
whats the best/most famous gopuram?
Are you looking for height, any specific architectural style within gopurams over time (Chola, Pallava, Pandya, Vijayanagar, etc.), or general cultural significance?
Tallest is either the Murudeshwara Temple or Ranganathaswamy Temple (which is also the biggest extant temple complex in India). Most significant ones are probably the Madurai Meenakshi Amman Temple (kind of the cultural heart of the Tamil kulturbund) or the Tirupati Venkateshwara Swamy Temple (the central gopuram is gold plated and circular while covering the main statue, while the surrounding gopurams are white - very aesthetically pleasing among the forested hills)
thank you thank you
anon i truly appreciate it but at the same time i cant even begin to pronounce these words, and researching each will take some time to do properly so that i can properly evaluate them
id ask for which is the most famous, but thats probably really biased from a western perspective without taking the full value of each into consideration
picrel is just me trying to pronounce the names
No problem if you can't pronounce them anon, I'm just here to expose people to a surprisingly obscure culture for having nearly as many speakers as German
Feel free to ask any other questions you would like
>Taj Mahal
more like stolen from Islam and not Hindu
poo stop being an illiterate moron. op asks for architecture within the land of india. who gives a shit about things being hindu or not?