Does Religious influence produce superior art/architecture

& Humanities was a mistake

>>2653667
No. Just compare modern european secular architecture with modern african religious architecture for proof.

File: Chrysler_Building_by_David_Shankbone_Retouched.jpg (597KB, 1036x3055px) Image search: [Google]

597KB, 1036x3055px

>>2653667
The cathedrals of capitalism look cool too occasionally.

>>2655821
>>>/pol/

File: leftypol.png (518KB, 500x517px) Image search: [Google]

518KB, 500x517px

>>2655830

>>2653667
No you abrahamcuck. Everything thing "aesthetic" in Christian and Muslim "architecture" just comes from the secular pagan Romans and Persians.

>>2653667
>using a secular building form to prove your point

>>2655837
that's exactly what a kike, ledditor or lefypol would say
my guess is the third option

I'm sorry, OP. It appears this thread is fucked

File: C4-WsAuWYAIyVJ6.jpg (175KB, 888x1133px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 888x1133px

>>2653667
Not necessarily
But it was definitely a great factor for competition. Islam and Christianity always compared their buildings. For instance in the 16th century when Mimar Sinan was challenged by Western architects to build a bigger and wider dome. Sinan eventually did whilst building the Selimiye in Edirne.

It's also the religion that influences the style. Higher cathedrals meant better echoing sound. They also needed a high spot to put a bell.
Similarly, Islam has minarets to loud the prayer. A dome however is mostly decorative and serve no religious purpose.

If you have an organization which can shit out millions of dollars into art then yes it will look better than some concrete structure done on a strict budget. Humanities genocide when?