Now that the dust has settled can we all agree that Indians are better architects than Europeans?

If I worked 10,000 years on a shitty macaroni painting (the greatest and largest in the world) it's still a fucking macaroni painting you twat!

indians have such a sad inferiority complex that they have to do anything they can to prove to themselves in any way the lie that their country isn't a steaming pile of shit

It isn't made to withstand a siege, it is just pure beauty inspired architecture. That is why one of the reasons it is superior.

Pretty much all of their ancient temples.

...

thank you vedic-aryans

WE

WUZ

AYYRANS N SHIET

Seriously though, them having red haired blue eyed gods and referring to dravidians as black monkeys doesn't mean they were white in the same way that modern Europeans are, they were probably Egyptian tier if anything. Like those tribes you see in Afghanistan that are kind of white but still look weird and are clearly their own subrace.

They all look the same

Interesting… it's almost like "Aryan" and "White" aren't always the same thing.

That clearly isn't true. If you aren't impressed by that ancient skyscraper that is actually well crafted and beautiful rather than being a disgusting obelisk replica then you are beyond hope. It is incredibly impressive the others are too but I bet that one took a lot of effort to make.

It is superior to European architecture.

When you hear "vedic aryans" on a site like this there is a 99% chance they are implying that they were pure blooded Europeans that were displaced by dravidians. That is the Holla Forums approved theory.

I think Hindu art and architecture puts the "muh Christianity inspired superior art" claims to bed too. The only European art to come close is ancient pretty Christian art and Renaissance art inspired by paganism. Prove me wrong. Protip: You can't.

*pre christian

...

nothing impressive, just block on block with decorations. and also smells bad.

those buildings look like complete shit

This is just incomprehensible to me. Do you find them genuinely aesthetically displeasing; or is it based on your preference for some other, perhaps more modern form of architecture?

Then again, many people think Family Guy is high entertainment, so I suppose I will never understand.

it's not very colorful stuff to say the least. it is just carvings, not exactly mechanically advanced.

Absolutely delusional.

That's kind of the idea. It's would be impressive if they were made today, it's even more impressive when you consider that they were made ages ago. What exactly is bad about them?

How so? I won't argue that the modern ones are a little more tacky with less soul put into them but they are still impressive.

I don't like making assumptions but it's probably because they aren't European so he feels like he has to denigrate them. When you think about when these were made, how llmuch effort was put into them and just how well they have held up over time it is hard to imagine anybody calling them trash for any reason other than personal ones.

…Right, so modern monoliths of cement and glass are impressive based on their mechanical advancement. It seems we have objectively different qualifiers, so we will have to agree to disagree.

It's good art. But what makes it good architecture?

Carving stone of such size with this much precision thousands of years ago was not an easy task. It wasn't easy hundreds of years ago. It is an impressive feat.

Fair point. I personally have enormous respect for Indo-Aryan civilization as well as European-Aryan.

The fact they have lasted for thousands of years and are engineering marvels from a time before high-technology could aid in their construction?

Let's talk about what defines good architecture. You say this is an example due to it's
~Impressive feat of Hard work
~Artful carvings

You know I guess it is much better than a lot of modern stuff. Maybe I just don't like architecture in general. Well actually I like simple and crisp patterns. Greek stuff and even some mosques are nice.

Oh right I remember now, architecture is based on design which has a number of established art styles
youtube.com/watch?v=vDCEtnXlA4Y&list=PLhQpDGfX5e7CJ87BDeuTdXTpxl0YM2Tdb&index=4

So you're basically saying because these don't adhere to some arbitrary established design structure they're not good? Interesting, especially considering they very likely predate said "established" styles by several millennia, at least.

No I said I personally like crisp and simple patterns, especially geometric ones. I even gave two examples.

Any reason to doubt that you didn't wanted a genuine discussion is now gone. Not sure what you're butthurt over but it's obvious you are just here to argue

Apart from the reasons i have listed I just like how unique it is. I like how a lot of them look like they shouldn't even be capable of maintaining their integrity yet have held up for millenia and I like how over the top they are. They are instantly recognisable as a kind of offering to a higher being and that means they are serving their purpose. Basically they are exactly what they are supposed to be and have stood the test of time, that's why I think they are superior.

It's all subjective and my own opinion but you can't deny that you would be in awe if you saw one of these with your own eyes a few hundred years back, like if you were a traveller and you stumbled across one of these you would be amazed by it. This pic for example, if you saw that back then it would blow your mind. It's not Indian but it is Hindu and in the same style.

They were great, it's just a shame that they have gone to shit.

And I already said we'll have to agree to disagree.

Kali-yuga, baby.

I like the concept but it also implies that every problem will solve itself eventually which I don't like. I really like the Kalki temple though, it is like a man made mountain.

Do you like this white temple more? It is a more modern version with some foreign influences, it's perfect and looks really good but it doesn't have the charm of the older temple's imo.

I told you I like Greek architecture. Which is just as old if not older than the origins of Hindu temple architecture

It's boring though and it all feels the same. Greek sculptures are superior but the architecture is bland.

...

Egyptian and Persian are nice too. Are you saying the temples are better than those?

I think they are better than these yes.

I don't know enough to have an opinion.

The only other thing I am aware of that I think comes close is Petra. I like the elaborate designs, the awe that they inspire and just knowing that at least tens of thousands of people toiled for multiple generations to build them. They are unique, all the other great ancient buildings that I know of have an interchangeable element to them.

I think the temples are better than these.

What sort of High Altar is this?

Lel

Yea I'm not sure about the designs themselves, though they are not bad, but the fact that this was a way of life shows how developed that society may have been

It was. Hindu is a top tier religion and India was one of the few nations to give Alexander the great serious trouble on his march to conquer the world. They were great once. They had a well developed caste system and a philosophy that gave everybody a clear task in society but something went wrong, people blame the muslim invasion but the muslim invasion being successful indicates that they had other problems of their own making. It's a damn shame that they lost their glory though, I feel like modern Hinduism is a bastardised form of what it once was. The caste system is basically irrelevant and there are no great temples being made for the gods anymore. Imagine something like the towering temple in being recreated with just as much effort put into it but with modern technology. It could be incrediblebut the Indian people just don't give enough of a shit to make them anymore. It's a damn shame tbh.