Talk:Indo-Saracenic architecture

Vocabulary?

What is a harem windows and what is a Bangala roof? Without definitions this page is more a nuisance than otherwise, since googling redirects back to wikimirrors of this page ro to this page...Undead Herle King (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Origin

Apparently, the Indo-Saracenic style was pioneered in Madras and by Robert Chisholm. I am unable to find sources for the data though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.69.165.89 (talk) 06:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Can anybody answer?

Why is this

called Neo-Classicism

and this

is Indo-Saracenic?--Dojarca 17:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Because this page is poorly researched and contains no sources.

British colonial architecture in Calcutta is, as you correctly point out, largely Neoclassical. The Indo-Saracenic style, which combines elements of Mughal architecture with the fashionable Gothic Revival, is more usually found in Bombay, Madras and, to a lesser extent, Delhi. 64.236.80.62 (talk) 12:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, well, yes I do admit its poorly researched due to the total lack of interest by Indians for thier culture and history (all credit to Bollywood) there isn't much information around on the internet (my primary source) of the Indo-Sarencenic style. In regards to the difference between Capitol Hill and the Victoria memorial is firstly you can clearly see the Indian features you wouldn't find in Prague or Edinburgh; the onion domes are the main example. I agree that it dones't really look like it was built with the Gothic style in mind, but the interchangable terms Indo-Gothic and Indo-Sarancenic kind of mean a generic mixture of native Indian (whether Hindu or Islamic) architecture mixed in with general European architecture, so in that sense one probably wouldn't be wrong in calling it Indo-Neoclassicism (although I'd be more inclined to calling it Indo-Renaissance, as you rightly say, architecture in Calcutta is mostly neoclassical such as the Government House and Marble palace, however with my rudimentary knowledge of architecture I'd say that the Victoria memorial is more Renaissance) but yes, my point is the interchangable terms Indo-Gothic and Indo-Sarancenic PROBABLY (I'm not entirely sure; in fact as i've mentioned Im rather ignorant) mean any mix of native Indian and European architecture. Aarandir (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Answering your question. The enormous arched entrance echoes the Jama Masjid of Delhi and the outsized central arches of other notable Islamic buildings. it would not be found on a classical building. The nineteenth century revival styles sometimes entailed a reversion to the form and even construction technique of the historical style they emulated, but just as often they consisted merely in pasting on a detail Think of America's many small, clapboard, wood-framed churches but, this is the key, with pointed arch windows. If the windows were squared we would call these churches Georgian. The pointed arches make these little churches Gothic. Just as the enormous arch marks this as an Indo-Saracenic building.AMuseo (talk) 13:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge

Hindoo style should be folded into this page.AMuseo (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Anti-British Tone

Much of this article incorporates an odd, anti-British tone has no evidence to warrant it. Ironically, it comments on the Mughals with a neutral tone, even though they descended from Mongols and similarly created a hybrid architecture. This is the sort of thing that puts the article in the 'Start Class' of quality, but I am not knowledgeable enough to extract the information from the POV. Wee Jimmy (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I would like you to point out how exactly the article is "Anti-British". If you read carefully, it also talks about how Aurangzeb, A mughal, was not appreciative of the building arts the Mughals had nurtured. As for the British, the actions mentioned were indeed taken by them at the expense of India's built heritage... After the 1857 revolt, the demolishing of buildings within the Red Fort was seen as an act of Vandalism by many contemporary Britishers. There was an Anti-Traditionalist sentiment among the Britishers after 1857. In fact, Sir Edwin Lutyens wasn't very fond of mughal architecture himself, rather going back in history and taking inspiration from Ancient Indian Edifices.. He regarded Indian Architecture as crude and Primitive.. It is only valid to reflect these views in this article, as it is primarily about a style of Architecture. In no way am I trying to Slander the Britishers... Merely talking about their actions with regard to Indian Architecture..Nirvaan.wiki (talk) 06:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree strongly with Wee Jimmy about the tone. Concerning the British, the tone has crossed over from an objective statement to a subjective bias. While the section about Aurangzeb is merely a statement about the impact of his policies, the tone taken in the section "Characteristics" is not neutral and displays a strong bias against the style discussed in this article as well as providing needless commentary and opinion on the issue. The section should remain focused on the architectural characteristics of the style and should discussion those in an encyclopedic fashion . --Akhipill (talk) 23:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't seem too bad to me, though much of the "Characteristics" section in particular is not well written & rather overblown, without actually being wrong. Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2019 (UTC)