>>17436755
The mosque of samarra fit at least one of my descriptors: low ceiling, cave like feel, and it is also dotted with columns all around. Probably more in line with the very first churches back they were just houses people worshipped in.
>There's no real architecturql requirement for it to be a mosque other than it facing towards mecca.
That's if you define a mosque as "a building muslims pray in", which I am explicitly not doing (although doing so is valid, obviously). From Morocco to Khiva there are many shared elements that evolved naturally and influenced eachother. Styles differ, of course.
You go to the sahel, Sumatra, or China (maybe some other place) and you find none of these, it's just a building muslims pray in.
>>17436757
That's for you to decide. I think the tall cathedrals with immense, vault ceilings and such are pretty nice.
For the record, and this will sound insane, the doric temples are very far from the Roman Pantheon architecture wise, imo. Even if they share some surface elements.
>>17436783
Mosques do not ressemble Doric temples, however. Byzantine churches and even some Pagan temples have a strong stylistic connection with a mosque. But the Parthenon does not. Think about why this may be, please.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/his/

Thread:

Which mosque type/style do you prefer? Which would be considered more “western/European”?