But your confusing the subject. There are two very different kinds of sculpture that we're now talking about. There's the one you have introduced which is subjective art who's quality is measured in the emotional reaction it elicits from its reproduction of an organic impression of real life.
And then there's the kind of brilliance we're talking about here. When I see these 3D representations of the girdle stones, it speaks very clearly to me about function. Engineers comprehend the implied strength of this seemingly random and yet exact fitting system they devised. That seeming randomness offers omnidirectional force resistance. And that kind of force is best represented by vibration.
But brilliant was a misleading choice of word for this because if your not on this page, you imagine I'm describing some stinky footed savant who has some freakish degree of visual spatial ability to design these complex shapes. But what's far more likely a scenario according to Occam's razor in the context of an engineers perspective, is that this work is the result of centuries of developed systems of calculation and visual simulation to achieve what is more likely an accessible and user friendly system of design and fabrication not unlike a childs access to sketchup and a 3D printer. This statement would be considered ridiculous childish babble a mere 30 years ago, but today a child can do this.
So brilliant yes, but only comparatively to what most have thought they were capable of. But like you, I prefer to reserve the term brilliant for the rare human who can form some clay into something that could bring you to tears.