The other day I dropped a picture of the Rome Pantheon into the comments:
(Philip Milne/CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)
Jurek Molnar of this parish responded that it’s “The most beautiful piece of architecture in the world,” which made me wonder. Being Jurek, I expect that’s what he wanted.
I have nothing but the deepest respect for Dr. Molnar but he’s obviously off his rocker. Here’s the proof…
Duke Humphrey’s Library in the Bodleian at Oxford:
(Diliff/CC BY-SA 3.0)
… though this is cheating. Even the Tate Modern would look good if they’d only shelve a set of encyclopedias in each room.
Wells, most graceful of the mediaeval cathedrals:
(Rodw/CC BY-SA 3.0)
Stonework so light it floats:
(Michael D Beckwith/CC0)
Stonehenge. Stonework so dense it seems to pin the world in place:
The Taj Mahal:
(Suraj rajiv/CC BY-SA 4.0)
The Palau de la Música Catalana
(Brian/CC BY 2.0)
(Dinorider/CC BY NC-ND 2.5)
The problem is, what order to rank them all in. It’s all so subjective. With which, we arrive at the point: The only real purpose of “Best Of” lists is an excuse to say ”I really like these….”
Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to nominate (with pictures) candidates for The Most Beautiful Piece Of Architecture In The World, hereafter “The Jureks.” First prize, the Harry’s Place usual of 7–14 days global celebrity followed by a permanent place in the Disqus memory hole. Runners-up the same. Miles Meagre will award hand-crocheted Special Jury Prizes as appropriate. (I’ll let him know about this in a minute.)
Gentlemen—for reasons of equity everyone will be assigned “gentleman” at posting—start your browsers.
By Paul M