It’s doesn’t really look the same in the pictures. The ceiling’s high and arched and the other is low and flat with rectangular entryways while the other has arched pillars. I supposed over time that could have been modified. It’s also sprawling and open while in the painting it looks cramped, maybe the low ceiling does that? The pillars are big masterpieces that somehow look delicate and I just don’t see that in the painting, everything is rectangular, the painting is very angular, while the actual building is rounded and flows like a cathedral, with high open ceilings. Not to say this site doesn’t have significance and it could have been modified over time. Just saying the architectural comparison is a square and a circle in difference to me. No, I probably wouldn’t visit, it would be an adventure to visit many old architectural sites around the world but this wouldn’t make my top 10 if I was planning to do that.