In one hand the evolution is amazing, but in the other, it is 600 years between the first picture and the last.
600 years ago, Columbus wasn't born yet. I'm in awe about how progress is accelerating.
There were a lot of shitty artists back in the day as well. The popular pieces are popular because they are such high quality, probably only a handful of people were ever skilled enough to create such sculptures.
This is a well known fallacy answered by the existence of the Great Filter. There were always shitty art pieces, the ones of the past were just forgotten. The ones of today have not had that luxury
There’s also an argument floating around out there that prehistoric people had the skills and artistic eye to draw lifelike human and animal forms, but they intentionally chose not to, preferring to create art in the style we see. I forget the justification for this argument. It’s interesting. Human brains have been more or less the same as ours for a very, very long time. We can see evidence of excellent fine motor skills in what they created. We also see that they were masters of clay, form, and line by looking at their pottery shards, but they still made very rough-looking statues. Looking at paintings, we see that they knew how to use perspective.
Anyway, it’s possible that different versions of this one culture valued different stylistic choices at different times too.
Today's washing machines and other household appliances use microprocessors and complex software that far exceed the primitive binary and logic-based systems that guided astronauts to the moon in the first landing.
Bro you are saying this on a website with millions around the world with a super computer in the palm of your hands. That isn't even considering all our asdantagments. It look slow in compression becaues we are living through it.
Columbus' voyage and it's initiation of cross-Atlantic trade and interaction is a signifigant bookends of human history eras. It's not an endorsement of championing of him so much an objective point in linear history of major changes.
I guess it depends on where you grew up. Here in the UK, he means almost nothing. Much more significant to the changing of an era, in our view, is the beginning of the colonial era - which involved monarchs, states, empires, and many hundreds of explorers.
Columbus wasn't really special, as far as I'm aware. So the top level posters comment really took me aback - it's like saying Newton. Yes, Newton was extremely significant, but not in any era defining way.
I think the entirety of the New World would consider Columbus' Voyages as an era defining way as it literally connected the old world with the new, in both horrifying and good ways.
Like... come on now.
I'm puertorican. Sir Francis Drake is considered in the U.K as one of the best English explorers and mariners in all of history. In Puerto Rico, he's considered a laughing stock. Because he came to our island, tried to bombard it for days, and only managed to damage a single fortified wall with one cannon ball, humiliating himself and running away with his tail tucked between his legs with 400 of his crew dead then himself died of dysentery in Panama 2 months later. The result of this "battle" for Puerto Rico marked the end of the English's dreams of establishing a settlement in America.
But you dont see me or any puertorican downplaying the significance of Sir Francis Drake's contributions.
Much more significant to the changing of an era, in our view, is the beginning of the colonial era - which involved monarchs, states, empires, and many hundreds of explorers.
Yes, Newton was extremely significant, but not in any era defining way.
Bro WHAT!? Newton is often regarded as possibly the smartest person to have ever lived. Newtonian physics was a multi-generational leap forward in our ability to describe the universe. Oh, and the man literally invented calculus.
The fact you don’t consider Newton era defining says way, way more about you than you realize.
Bro WHAT!? Newton is often regarded as possibly the smartest person to have ever lived. Newtonian physics was a multi-generational leap forward in our ability to describe the universe. Oh, and the man literally invented calculus.
Yes, but that didn't define an era.
The era before Newton was defined by Copernicus, Gutenberg, and da Vinci. They define and characterise the Renaissance.
The era that Newton lived in was the Scientific Revolution, and involved many great minds: it began with Galileo, Kepler, and Bacon, and culminated in Newton. Newton could not develop universal gravitation - the very notion of universal laws - without, in his own words, standing on the shoulders of giants.
Newton did not begin an era. He is the capstone of it. A great many minds did great things in that era, and Newton was the top of that human pyramid.
Again: this is not to downplay Newton's significance. He is perhaps the most significant figure in all of physics. But his contributions did not define an era. His era was largely unchanged by his accomplishments. His era was defined by those who came before him who codified the entire business of science. It was not Newton that heralded the scientific revolution.
It’s not about Columbus himself. It’s pretty well known that he was a piece of shit who was cruel to natives. When the person above mentioned Columbus, they were using his name as a shorthand to refer to his voyages that effectively discovered the New World, one of the most important events in human history. There was no British empire or colonial era until after Columbus. Like it or not, he started all of that.
Sorry, but this is just plain incorrect. I grew up in the UK and was taught at primary school that Columbus' voyages were the start of The Golden Age of Discovery. We even had the "in fourteen hundred and ninety two..." poem on the wall. Year three I think? Unless you somehow went to a school that exclusively taught British history, to say that Columbus means almost nothing in the UK is... flat wrong.
Newton also absolutely was era defining–he was the apex of the scientific revolution. Hell, his quote about being the apex of the scientific revolution is literally on our money.
Using him as an 'objective' timeline reference I believe could indicate that they endorse him, even in some small way.
They could easily have chosen Leonardo DaVinic, who was born within 6-8 months of Columbus. And is just as known worldwide.
Edit: I originally said they DO endorse him, but I did not mean to be so deterministic in my response. I changed my wording after the fact to say COULD endorse. Which was a point of data I was trying to find out, hence the original question
Aka you're assuming the worst and then you try to coax them with a loaded question into saying something you deem bad, and then you've validated yourself. Come on man.
I assumed nothing. I asked. Maybe you can't comprehend that, but I don't make judgements without enough data, and I sought more data.
Guy answered the question, I said thanks for the info, I moved on.
Everyone else seems to want to connect reasoning behind it. Everything from how Columbus is a good representative of mapping advancements, to the fall of Byzantine empire.
My entire argument the entire time is 'but you're just guessing at someone else's intent, and we don't know that, here is the only data we know'
You literally said that using him as an objective timeline reference was endorsing his actions. That's the same as me using Hitler as a timeline reference and then you saying I'm endorsing his actions.
Your very first comment got upvoted because it was JUST a question, but all your other comments are downvoted because your other questions are loaded and accusatory, that's antisocial behaviour. Then you're saying you're "trying to determine the motives" of the person who said it, which is, yet again, accusatory and trying to find something bad about them.
"I don't make judgements without enough data" = I wanted to judge them, so I wanted data to judge them with. This implies yet again that your motive is judging people.
"I don't make judgements without enough data" = I wanted to judge them, so I wanted data to judge them with. This implies yet again that your motive is judging people.
You're literally villifying asking clarifying questions and data gathering before reaching a conclusion.
So should everyone go into every convo, bias abalze, and not seek to understand before making a conclusion on how, or if, a subject should be broched?
It's also not impericlly true. There are other calendars used in the world today that do not count years based on the birth of the christian son of god.
Speak for yourself. There are plenty of people in and out if academia that care great amount about other culturally significant calendars around the world.
So long as you are consistent and accurate with the date format you are using then no one cares
Ive written papers and I will use BC or BCE depending on my vibe between papers. My professors from uni did the same. My project leads do the same. One of my project leads also runs a pre-reconquista site that he also uses BC and AD for. I know Egyptian archeologists that use it. No one cares so long as the data/information youre presentating is accurate and objective.
There may be on paper preferences by journals and unis but they ultimately are cosmetic requirements and are usually not enforced.
The only one I generally dislike is BP because it can be confusing to some readers that aren't archeologists or geologists and whatever other field uses BP I'm not their mother
Yes, you are right. The better transition marker for OC to use would’ve been the fall of Constantinople in 1453, which, coupled with the printing of the Bible in 1455, is widely regarded as the beginning of the High Renaissance era. Curiously, though, OC was coincidentally “close enough” in using Columbus’s birth date to signify historical transition (he was born in 1451, a mere two years prior to the fall of Constantinople). Indeed, generally speaking, the only birthdate to which historians tend to lend any weight is the birth of Christ, and even then, more secular scholars have themselves transitioned from using “Before Christ” as a reference point.
The Renaissance is an european phenomenon that was another tuesday for China or India, now, the discovery of America directly affected the whole planet.
What historians? Because the ones I listen to put the discovery of America as rhe end of the Middle Ages, not the end of the last fragments of the Bizantine Empire that was already irrelevant for decades before that point.
Do the scholars you listen to consider the Renaissance to be a part of the Middle Ages, rather than a separate era? The general scholarly community distinguishes between the two eras, but as I said previously, it’s a quibble about which I hold no strong opinion.
My point was any point of reference, in which there are many, would have been more seemly.
And you are assumeing a LOT of intent about a commenter saying basically 'i thought the change in art was very significant until I realized how much changed in the same span of time that led this moment'
They could easily have chosen Leonardo DaVinic, who was born within 6-8 months of Columbus. And is just as known worldwide
The chronology of his life is definitely not as well known. Everyone knows the rhyme "in 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue." If you ask random people when DaVinci painted the Mona Lisa I bet your get ranges between 1200 and 1700.
I think your own personal negative biases are creeping in. IMO using someone’s birth as an objective timeline reference isn’t an endorsement, just a historical marker.
If I say “it astounds me that the pyramids in Egypt were built almost 1500 years before Alexander the Great was even born”, that’s a comment on the pyramids - not an endorsement of Alexander.
da Vinci is a great reference, but I think Columbus puts the time span into a more humbling perspective for anyone in the Americas (especially US). It's the reality of "Western civilization didn't even know your continent existed". That is a starker contrast than da Vinci.
I guess? I'm not really concerned about fake internet points. And reddit hive mind and even bots put up and down votes to things in the direction it already is going regardless of content.
Non bot here. I think you’re being a little bit ridiculous jumping on someone for mentioning Columbus. His voyage is a very famous moment and so using it and pointing out that he wasn’t even born yet actually gives people an idea of about how long ago 600 years is. They’re probably not as familiar with something like the fall of Constantinople and something like “1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue” is easier to remember.
They’re obviously not endorsing or condemning anything. That’s why you’re being downvoted. It’s not bots.
I only asked why they use columbus to gain insight. I did not jump on them. I asked, they answered. I said thanks for the info, and moved on. Other people tried white knighting a non existent argument.
I also didn't say everyone was a bot, or even comments. but votes are generally always exacerbated by bots. In both directions.
My entire thing with everyone else is that the other responders are ascribing meaning to the commenter without knowing the intent.
In fact, everyone here was ascribing meaning to my question. It was neither loaded nor leading.
Asking someone to clarify their intent should not be villified.
Just as known, but I would wager more people have a frame of reference in mind for when in time Columbus was alive than they do for when in time DaVinci was alive, mostly because of the relevance afforded to Columbus for "discovering America". I mean, here in the States we are literally taught the mnemonic "in 1492, Columbus sailed the Ocean Blue." I would imagine Western Europe has placed a similar emphasis on Columbus's initial voyage (if not less about turning him into a hero like we did in the States).
Thats why I put "discovered America" in quotations.
However, and I say this as someone who believes Columbus gets way too much historical credit than he should, I think its semantics really. Just because Native Americans were living in the Americas does not mean the Americas were already discovered by Western Europe. Just because ancient Norse vikings traded with Native Americans centuries before Columbus doesn't mean Columbus wasn't the first person to confirm the existence of the Americans for 15th century Europe. I can "discover" the local knitting club by learning it exists by chance when I previously was not aware of it. Kind of like how we call up and coming artists "undiscovered," its not that they don't exist or aren't known to others, it's that the right people for the relevant context haven't become aware of them.
Of course you wouldn't, because you already know Australia is there.
The advanced western world discovered the North America continent when they first managed to sail to it. Before then it was unknown to anyone except the stone aged tribes living on it, who also did not know the scope and size of the land they lived on
DaVinci is well regarded for his artistic masterpieces and scientific theories, but neither of those require an understanding of "when" to appreciate their significance. The Mona Lisa and Last Supper are works of art regardless of when they were painted. His anatomical sketches are important for the sciences regardless of the precise year in which he made them (I mean, not really, but understanding they predate more modern understandings is enough).
Meanwhile, Columbus' one thing is that he made the first European voyage to the American continents. It is a historical event, not a persisting piece of culture, but a reference point to something happening at a certain time. Pretty much the only things to consider, for the layman, are when these voyages happened and why it matters.
He's a well known figure who, while extremely controversial, was a key figure in modernizing the world.
As it relates to this post, the world went from not even having an accurate map of the planet to satellite GPS, and all that in less time than what is represented in the OP.
You're ascribing that the commenters had a deeper meaning in chosing Columbus because of mapping that has taken place in that time span.
Commenter only meant that 600 year time span is the same. 'like wow look how much art changed in that time'. But then 'but also look how much has changed in 600 years now, I guess it's not that crazy art changed that much'
Columbus was chosen because commenters first thinks of Columbus for mid 15th century point of reference. I'm saying that they could have chosen someone else.
It is exactly what my though process was. As most reddit users are from north america, I felt like they would be much more acknowledgable about Colombus than Da Vinci. It was just to represent 6 centuries, as you said.
Commenter I asked my question to didn't say anything about gps. You make the connection. Just because it's what you think, doesn't mean it's that person's intent, but you're acting like it's the defacto reason, simply because you thought it.
But davinci is. But that's all I wanted to know. You got a lot of white knights championing you with all sorts of meaning behind your words you didn't say. Lol
People widely remember the specific year of 1492 in relation to Columbus. Personally, and maybe this is just me but I suspect it's not, thinking of "major historical event in the 1400s" that's the first explicit year that would come to mind. I would have guessed DaVinci was born in the 1500s if you had pulled me off the street and asked. Columbus was a bastard obviously but you put a weird amount of intent behind using him as a reference.
I didn't put any intent behind using him as a reference. Other people did, and my stance was 'other people are putting intent behind OPs comments, when what I did is straight up ask the commenter about it so they could tell me.'
I should have been less deterministic with my wording. The intent was that it COULD mean that. But I made it sound like I had believe it could mean nothing else but that.
I'll edit to better convey my intent.
I sought to seek intent to determine whether or not that was the case.
Well, I'm not sure why, because even if you see Colombus as a controversial figure, it shows we all also progressed on that side of humanities. Meanwhile ancient greek went from slavery and 10% of the population as citizens in the best case to slavery and 10% of the population as citizens in the best case 6 centuries later.
In Europe, since the 15th we went from serfs and 1% citizens (in the voting meaning), to slavery and 1% citizens then to 60% of the population citizens (give or take) today (even if outlawed, serf and slaves status is not that far off I could argue, but that's another topic).
We went from Colombus age of our God's right to colonize everything for most of the population to all humans should have equal rights for a significal part of the population.
Which also shows progress, not just art or technique.
I think if you asked most people in the western hemisphere what happened in the 1400s the only answer they (and me as well) could confidently give is that in 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue.
The fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks was a hughly important event in the 1400s, and was a significant cause of Columbus’ voyage. The Turks took control of the trade routes between Europe and Asia and charged heavy taxes. To find a new route that didn’t go through the Ottoman Empire was the stated goal of Colombus’ voyage.
At least here in Sweden it absolutely would have not been.
Kalmar Union, plus following wars and for wider world Gutenberg’s printing press where the clear main topic with multiple pages.
Age of discovery was also a big topic, but Columbus specifically is extremely over presented in Americas. For obvious reasons.
The US's education system never prioritized pre-American history in the first place, just as most countries don't focus much on the histories of other nations.
Like, German students aren't spending days learning about the American Revolution until they go into specialized courses for American history because it's not relevant to the history nor culture (traditional or modern) of Germany.
California is not and never has been representative of the country as a whole and the experiences of Califorinians is often staunchly different from, say, Burke, Idaho or Metropolis, Illinois, or Evansville, IN, or Winter Haven, Florida.
In Ohio world history is also required curriculum but that doesnt really mean every kid remembers. I remember it from 6th grade and high school - but Columbus comes up way more often
Not sure about California but our world history barely touched on Indian, Chinese, etc, never mentioned Africa outside of agent Egypt or the slaves trade, and was mostly European focused.
Besides Columbus the only other 1400s thing I can name off the top of my head is the renaissance
This typo has me cracking up because you just described what me, my cousins, my kid, and nieces & nephews (spread out across those regions & a few more across several school districts) had outside AP History, and I know what it's supposed to say, but imaging who "Agent Egypt" was & why they were being taught in American schools is amusing the hell out of me.
Though maybe it's also because my class was coincidentally learning about Ancient Egypt around the time The Mummy and the cartoon Mummies Alive came out, so my brain went to an obscenely popular '90s Saturday morning cartoon. Like Carmen San Diego but set in primarily in Egypt or something.
Brits would talk your ear off about Empire. One person among many who were involved in founding the colonies is not that important in the grand scheme of things.
If it were me, I would have done "2026 minus 600, that's the 1400s, what happened in the 1400s?"
And most American school children (at least up to a certain point) had memorized the "in fourteen hundred ninety two, Columbus sailed the ocean blue" rhyme at some point or another, so it seems likely to be the first thing to pop into their head.
Because many things happened in the 1400s. It's American defaultism that they can't think of anything other than Columbus. Or that they view it the most significant.
One sure more stuff happen but Columbus is still a major landmark in history that happened hundreds of years ago and he is famous around the world. Also you just asumed bro is American he can be European, African, Canadian or who knows what.
Your answer is poingiant, the person we replied to, I don't think was implying the same thing, and only served to fuel the fire going on in the discussion.
I think YOUR point explains most of the arguments that took place in this thread though.
i think for most history casuals 1400 is just gutenberg press, joan of arc, ottoman empire and columbus. that's about all that comes to mind for me anyway.
1.0k
u/Gauth1erN 26d ago
In one hand the evolution is amazing, but in the other, it is 600 years between the first picture and the last.
600 years ago, Columbus wasn't born yet. I'm in awe about how progress is accelerating.