“There’s a dichotomy
of simplicity and complexity that is embodied in the Renaissance.” –Stephanie
Roberts
As
Stephanie, Jacob, Devan, Kevin, Sean and I sat talking, discussing the various
aspects of the Renaissance, I was struck by the dual personality that this era
seems to have. On one hand there seems to be this emphasis on making things
simple, clearer. The Protestant Reformation sought to make religion more
accessible to the common man. Sola scriptura, Sola fide—only scripture and only
faith were necessary for salvation. Gone were the Catholic sacraments.
But on the
other hand, some things seemed to get increasingly more complex. The list of
expected qualities in a courtier began expanding. Not only was one expected to
be sociable, wellborn, and smart, but they also needed to be a master of
fencing, horseback riding, bull fighting, hunting, etc. And to top it all off,
they had to make it look effortless.
That need
to make it seem effortless is perhaps the truest symptom of this split. When
both simplicity and complexity are valued, the complex must be made to appear
simple.
For
example, Renaissance art is in many ways much more complex than the art of the
Medieval period. Going back to the Greco-Roman style, the effort and detail put into creating lifelike images of the human body (e.g. the Vitruvian Man) greatly exceeded the flat, unemotional images of the Dark Ages. But despite all of this extra “complexity,” the pictures seem simpler. It’s clearer, more defined, and as a result easier to focus in on the humanity of the work. The more realistic art breaks down the barriers that keep us from diving into the work. Immersing oneself in the art is so much easier. You can dive right in. It’s no wonder that the importance in society of the individual increased dramatically as the beauty of the individual was more easily perceived.
Medieval period. Going back to the Greco-Roman style, the effort and detail put into creating lifelike images of the human body (e.g. the Vitruvian Man) greatly exceeded the flat, unemotional images of the Dark Ages. But despite all of this extra “complexity,” the pictures seem simpler. It’s clearer, more defined, and as a result easier to focus in on the humanity of the work. The more realistic art breaks down the barriers that keep us from diving into the work. Immersing oneself in the art is so much easier. You can dive right in. It’s no wonder that the importance in society of the individual increased dramatically as the beauty of the individual was more easily perceived.
This seems
to carry over into written works of art as well. New methods of publication designed
by Gutenberg were more advanced. Complex machines were designed to print books,
which in turn made access simpler. Reading itself even became simpler (printed
type is often so much easier to read than handwriting)!
But perhaps
this duality really isn’t all that remarkable. Isn’t this what technology is
supposed to do? We all hold these complex phones in our hands that allow us to communicate
with others with greater ease. Finding our ways around new cities is simpler
with advanced GPS technology. Even writing this assignment for class is easier
thanks to a complex big ball of internet (which is obviously so complex that I
don’t even know how to begin to describe it).
So often
though, you hear people long for a “simpler life.” We long for a way to
disconnect from all the advancements and the trouble they too often bring. Just
as advancement in the realm of exploration brought havoc in the form of
smallpox and other disease for the Natives Columbus came in contact with, our
modern technology brings its own diseases. Cyberbullying. Porn. These plagues
make life far from simple as people struggle to overcome their degrading
effects and once again find “the dignity of man.”
Thinking like an economist: you have to consider your marginal benefit over your marginal cost. Do we really think that the benefits to philosophy, religious freedom, arts etc. were worth the costs of complexity and sacrifice? I would venture that it is. If we didn't have these advancements, even though sometimes it was two step forwards and one step back, we wouldn't be able to have these discussions. The fact that we even think about it seems to prove its merit.
ReplyDelete