Some thoughts
Muslim architecture is a confused and mishmash affair. So, it just barely fits in the category.
Why is it a mishmash?
Because there is no real structure. One cannot say that this is "Mosque Architecture" or "Fort Architecture" or "Domestic Building Architecture." It is almost as if anything goes, anywhere.
Also, because of its extreme borrowed nature, including building on old churches and old Roman structures, and actually incorporating those architecture into their newly formed buildings, originality is a big problem. Christian/Western architecture hardly ever built on older structures, but rather built new buildings instead.
I should add also, that even within one building, there are so many styles and forms and shapes, that a coherent structure is difficult to find. It is as though the pulled all the stops, to make the most beautiful building.
So, one could say that there are "Muslim Buildings, with borrowed structures from previous buildings, and borrowed ideas, shapes and forms, with a haphazard collection of shapes forms and structures."
I think that is the extent of Muslim Architecture, to be precise.
Based on these five points, I will analyze the Mosque in Cordoba, Spain.
a. Cultural functionality
b. Aesthetics (beauty)
c. Spiritual dimensions
d. Technical invention --- NEW
e. Technical genius
Here are more points to consider:
a. Cultural functionality: As a place where Muslims can gather to worship their god.
Does it work? Yes.
b. Aesthetics: The repetition of the arches in all directions, giving a sense of infinite, never ending space.
Does it work? No - It would make me feel a little claustrophobic after a while. Like in a maze with no escape.
c. Spiritual dimension: The feeling of the infinity of god, endlessly repeated (like the arches) everywhere in the building.
Does it work? No - The confusion from the structure would leave me frustrated and unfulfilled. I can never find god.
d. Technical invention: None. Borrowed from previous "horseshoe" and curved arches from pre-Islamic and Byzantine models. The "innovation" is to put one arch on top of another, to heighten the ceiling. But this was already done in Roman aqueducts. Also, the pillars or columns and the foundation already existed from a previous Visigoth church.
Is it inventive? No.
e. Technical genius. None, since most of the structure's innovations were based on other existing structures (see d. above).
Is it ingenious? No.
Now, the Cordoba Mosque is a Christian Church. But then aren't the Christians doing the same by superimposing on an existing building? No. The original structure was a church. So, it is back to where it was.
 |
Arches in Cordoba's Mosque (now Cathedral).
Arches in Cordoba's Mosque (now Cathedral).
Roman Aqueduct
