On the World’s Most Overrated Monument and Liberace’s Weeping With Joy

by Guido Mina di Sospiro (June 2026)

Let us begin gloriously, at the security queue.

Agra, a city that was once extraordinary and is now a staging post for pilgrims to the monument, processes approximately 15,000 visitors daily through its security apparatus. The reason for this, stated by the Indian authorities themselves, is radical Islamic terrorism. That is, the supreme monument of Islamic civilization requires military-grade protection from Islamic terrorists. The faith that built it now threatens to blow it up. One pauses to admire the theological tidiness of this arrangement before being patted down. There are male and female guards for male and female visitors (female guards for male visitors and vice versa might be more fun yet, but not a likely eventuality). The female guard who patted down my wife did so with such zest, the latter wondered if she might be infatuated. We were then scanned, relieved of water bottles and any object that might conceivably threaten anything, and released blinking into the typically under-irrigated gardens with bushes displaying stunted growth while our guide—he had a not-so-subtle salivation problem that punctuated every sentence with a fine mist of enthusiasm while his breath smelled like deodorant—immediately requested our phone. He wanted to film our expression of wonder at the first sight of the Taj Mahal. This was, apparently, his own entrepreneurial initiative: the manufacturing and documentation of the anticipated epiphany.

We handed over the phone; walked through the gate; and looked.

A wedding cake, topped by an onion.

I have looked at this image many times since, in photographs, in paintings, in the fever dreams of Victorian romantics who apparently saw something I did not. The wedding cake quality of the platform and the surrounding minarets, the slightly preposterous bulbousness of the central dome, or crushed onion, squatting on top like an afterthought in a different aesthetic register—this does not resolve into sublimity the longer you look. It crystallizes. Once seen as a wedding cake topped by an onion, the image is irreversible.

The guide retrieved the phone. Our expressions of wonder were now safely recorded for posterity. He seemed disappointed because, probably, we seemed insufficiently overwhelmed.

The first thing the Taj Mahal does is make you feel like a failure at awe. You blink. You falter. You are insufficient, inadequate, somehow doing reverence incorrectly. Liberace, by contrast, would have glided in wearing sequins, wept with glittering joy, and begun redecorating on the spot. He knew kitsch—and he celebrated it, unapologetically. He worshiped Tchaikovsky, whose music, like the Taj Mahal, is stratospherically high kitsch. Yet Liberace’s embrace of Tchaikovsky is not false—it is ecstatic, knowing, and alive. The Taj Mahal’s kitsch, by contrast, is imposed. Stripped of its star-crossed romance, embalmed myths, and Instagram-ready legends, it is haute couture of confectionary absurdity: a wedding cake baked on a pharaonic scale, frosting applied with obsessive precision, and presented with the deadly seriousness of a UN summit that goes, as they all do, nowhere. Liberace knew he was flamboyant, campy, excessive—and he owned it with pride. The Taj Mahal knows it too—but it will not allow you that honesty. It insists you pretend it is divine. Marble swells and onion-shaped domes hover like custard peaks in a fever dream. The kitsch is not garnish; it is the skeleton, the architecture, the whole existential point. And the 15,000 pilgrims filing through security, phones raised like sacramental wafers, are not visiting a mausoleum—they are attending mass at the Church of Sugar.

This is because the Taj Mahal does not exist as a building. It exists as a myth, and myths require proper genuflection. The myth runs as follows: Shah Jahan, grief-stricken emperor, built it as a mausoleum for his beloved wife Mumtaz Mahal, who died in 1631 giving birth to their fourteenth child. The result: a grenade of Mughal architecture, supposed to make strong men weep and poets reach for their pens.

Well, let’s see…

Shah Jahan was not primarily a grief-stricken romantic. He was a Mughal emperor, which is to say a ruler of considerable ruthlessness operating in a tradition that did not prize romantic monogamy. Mumtaz Mahal was his favorite wife, true. She was also his second. He took others after her death. The monument that supposedly externalized his inconsolable grief was built over twenty-two years using a workforce of approximately 20,000 laborers drawn from across the empire. The Mughal empire was vast and its treasury was deep and its emperor was absolute, which meant that love, in this case, was underwritten by something that looked less like romance and more like imperial vanity on an almost pharaonic scale.

And yet the architect was not Indian. He was not even properly Mughal in the subcontinental sense. Ustad Ahmad Lahori came from Lahore, trained in the Timurid architectural tradition that ran through Samarkand and Bukhara—the Central Asian cities of Tamerlane’s empire, now in Uzbekistan. The aesthetic language of the Taj Mahal is not indigenous to the Gangetic plain. It is a transplant, a Central Asian import, executed by Hindu craftsmen working in a tradition that was not theirs, producing a building that nobody can quite claim with full honesty.

The Indians claim it as the jewel of Indian civilization. The Muslims claim it as the supreme monument of Islamic architecture. The British, who spent the 19th century falling comprehensively in love with it, claimed it as proof that they were the benevolent custodians of a great civilization—Lord Curzon’s restoration at the turn of the 20th century being less an act of conservation than of appropriation, the colonizer casting himself as the savior of the very thing he was in the process of looting. Three separate myths, three separate stakeholders, all equally distorted, all equally self-serving.

And underneath all three myths: an Uzbek, working in a Persian-Central Asian tradition, with Hindu craftsmen, for a Mughal emperor, on the banks of a river in Uttar Pradesh.

The synthesis is real. But the synthesis is precisely what every mythology about the Taj Mahal systematically erases, because synthesis serves nobody’s narrative cleanly.

Now consider what the building actually is, at the level of its decorative program. The surfaces of the Taj Mahal are covered in pietra dura inlay work of great technical refinement—floral patterns, geometric patterns, Quranic calligraphy, arabesques of mesmerizing intricacy. Impressive but, let’s be honest, scribbling. Magnificent, technically accomplished, mathematically sophisticated scribbling—but scribbling nonetheless, because the Islamic aniconic tradition, the prohibition on the representation of the human figure and the natural world in devotional contexts, left Islamic artistic genius with nowhere to go except the infinite elaboration of pattern and geometry— or scribbling.

The arabesque is what happens when an entire civilization’s artistic impulse is simultaneously ignited and lobotomized. The energy is real; the prohibition is real; the result is the world’s most sophisticated doodling. The Taj Mahal’s interior surfaces are therefore exquisite and empty. You are in the presence of pure pattern, pure geometry, pure surface—and there is, in the most profound sense, nobody home.

Now extract yourself from Agra’s heat, pollution and mosquitoes and fly to … Chartres.

Chartres does not process 15,000 daily pilgrims through security. It does not require a guide with a salivation problem to mediate your experience. It does not ask you to perform wonder on camera. It simply stands there on its promontory above the Beauce plain, asymmetrical—one Gothic spire, one Romanesque, mismatched by a century of building and utterly indifferent to the inconsistency—and waits.

You walk in.

Chartres does not ask you to be impressed. It pulls you into a vertical, ontological/eschatological argument about the nature and fate of existence that has been running for eight centuries and shows no sign of fatigue. You do not visit Chartres. Chartres happens to you. The mathematics and the theology are inseparable; every proportion, every flying buttress, every ensconced green man, every sculpted portal is load-bearing not just structurally but metaphysically. The light through the rose windows is not decorative. It is an argument. And nobody is filming your face.

Then fly to … Toledo.

Walk into the cathedral and surrender to a building that is larger on the inside than the exterior promises—a theological impossibility made architectural fact. Then find the Transparente: Narciso Tomé’s baroque eruption cut directly into the Gothic ambulatory wall, a hole punched through eight centuries of stone to let divine light fall on the tabernacle, angels tumbling from the ceiling in gilded stucco, heaven literally breaking through. Another civilization would have preserved the Gothic integrity. Toledo said: truth is still arriving, and we will rupture our own wall to let it in. Then find El Greco’s El Expolio in the sacristy—Christ in that luminous crimson robe, a painting so concentrated it hums. Then the choir stalls with the fall of Granada carved in wood with almost journalistic precision. Then Cisneros’ chapel. Then the treasury. Then the reliquary.

Toledo cathedral is a civilization arguing with itself across six centuries and never once losing the thread.

Then fly to … Siena.

Marvel at a cathedral so encrusted with a civilization’s entire self-understanding that Pisano’s pulpit alone contains more genuine artistic intelligence than the Taj Mahal’s entire decorative program. Why? Because it is a compressed universe of human experience carved in marble. The panels depict the Nativity, the Adoration of the Magi, the Massacre of the Innocents, the Crucifixion. In each panel, dozens of figures press against each other with individual faces, individual grief, individual postures—mothers clutching dying infants, soldiers with expressions of bureaucratic indifference to the slaughter they are committing, angels with oddly different emotional registers. The bodies have weight. The drapery has movement. The spatial relationships between figures create narrative tension that reads across the panel like a sentence building toward a devastating final word. The Massacre of the Innocents alone—the mothers, the soldiers, the children—contains more compressed human truth than most civilizations manage in an entire artistic tradition. You are looking at specific people in a specific moment of extremity, and the specificity is what makes it unbearable and therefore immortal.

Conversely, look at the Taj Mahal’s decorative program. Floral arabesques; geometric patterns; Quranic calligraphy of great refinement. All of it exquisitely executed, none of it capable of depicting a mother losing her child, a soldier’s indifference, a face contorted by grief or joy or terror. The prohibition forecloses all of that. Permanently. By theological decree. Pisano could go anywhere the human condition goes. The Taj Mahal’s craftsmen, however gifted, were forbidden the entire territory that makes art matter.

And then look down at the cathedral’s floor mosaics—the sibyls of antiquity sitting alongside the biblical prophets, outright paganism absorbed into the Christian fabric without anxiety, without apology. The Sienese were confident enough in their civilization to metabolize everything—classical antiquity, pagan prophecy, the full unruly inheritance of the human spirit—into the sacred whole. We are large enough to contain this. We are large enough to contain everything.

And nobody, in any of these three cathedrals, asked to film your face.

Now compare and contrast.

Three cathedrals. One mausoleum. The difference is not aesthetic. It is civilizational.

The Taj Mahal contains one idea, executed to perfection, and then repeated across every surface until you submit. It is closed. One tradition, one gesture, one material, one message. The arabesques fold back on themselves infinitely because they cannot go anywhere else. There are no sibyls. No angels rupturing through walls. No crimson robe humming with supernatural light. No paganism metabolized into the sacred. No civilization arguing with itself across centuries. The prohibition saw to that. You are in the presence of pure pattern, pure geometry, pure surface—and there is, in the most profound sense, nobody home.

Chartres, Toledo, and Siena are open systems. They absorbed the classical, the pagan, the baroque, the Moorish—Toledo has Mudéjar literally built into its bones—and metabolized everything without anxiety, without apology, because a civilization at its peak does not fear the other tradition. It ingests it. These three cathedrals are dense with human struggle, dense with accumulated meaning, dense with the fingerprints of craftsmen who believed they were building for God and worked accordingly. They contain suffering, divinity, paganism, history, and the full unruly range of human experience pressed into stone and pigment and glass.

The Taj Mahal is, arguably, the world’s most successful confidence trick: a mausoleum pretending to be a love story, a Central Asian import pretending to be Indian genius, a surface pretending to be a soul, a wedding cake topped by an onion pretending to be the sublime. It has fooled everyone for four centuries. Liberace, at least, would have known exactly what he was looking at. And he would have wept with joy.

The rest of us are free to notice the onion.

Table of Contents

Guido Mina di Sospiro was born in Buenos Aires, Argentina, into an ancient Italian family. He was raised in Milan, Italy and was educated at the University of Pavia as well as the USC School of Cinema-Television, now known as USC School of Cinematic Arts. He has been living in the United States since the 1980s, currently near Washington, D.C. He is the author of several books including, The Story of Yew, The Forbidden Book, The Metaphysics of Ping Pong, and Forbidden Fruits.

Follow NER on Twitter @NERIconoclast