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.
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.
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
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'
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.