>>406301>Please tell me why the African mudhut is aesthetically superior to the cathedral.1. Aesthetics is one component of architecture and one of the least important.
2. Mud huts have been used literally everywhere and were still used in much of Europe until a few centuries ago.
3. Mud huts (houses) serve a completely different function to cathedrals (places of worship), and a commoner's house will not be as lavish as the place of worship in their society or any other for that matter, especially since aesthetics are one of the important functions of places of worship whereas a house prioritizes other things like utility.
4. Your judgment of aesthetics (or anything else) is based on a european mindset, so obviously architecture built for different standards is not going to meet your tastes.
5. As said here
>>406282 Africans paint attractive designs on their buildings while cum skins leave their houses as bland, lifeless, and sterile as the rest of their culture, especially their food.