Medieval architecture is something gorgeous. Gothic and romanic architecture were artistic representation of a building, but when you see medieval paintings they're extremely simple, sometimes asymmetrical and (maybe) rudimentar. Why architecture, which was more complex and difficult to be executed, was more advanced than painting?
This question comes up a lot -- the tl;dr is that art is dependent on the context in which it's created, and thinking that photorealistic art is "good" and medieval art is "bad" is a cultural phenomenon/value judgment that's modern, and is orthagonal to what medieval artists were after. These past threads may help shed some light on this: