How did the Renaissance change the thinking from the middle ages?

Answer 1

The renaissance was a major break though in art. the early greeks and romans were very advanced in art, but it was all destroyed and lost because of the barbarians.

in the medevail times, the cathlioc pope did not allow artist to study bodies. that is why medevail paintings are pretty bad. in the renaissace, artist did start to study dead bodies and learn more about humans. this was a major breakthrough in art and science

Answer 2

The conventional answer is that the Renaissance was a rebirth of rational thinking, science, and culture, elevating these things to levels they had not attained since the time of the Roman Empire. Renaissance people, it is said, took the view that the world could be explained by empirical observation and scientific study. In the arts, they regarded the design and execution of the Middle Ages so barbaric, that Renaissance people referred to one of the more important styles as Gothic, a term that had about the same connotations as the word Vandal does today.

Answer 3

The conventional answer is that the Renaissance was a rebirth of rational thinking, science, and culture, elevating these things to levels they had not attained since the time of the Roman Empire. Renaissance people, it is said, took the view that the world could be explained by empirical observation and scientific study. In the arts, they regarded the design and execution of the Middle Ages so barbaric, that Renaissance people referred to one of the more important styles as Gothic, a term that had about the same connotations as the word Vandal does today.

My personal view is just about the opposite. The difference is that where the people of the Middle Ages were religious, those of the Renaissance were humanist, and where the people of the Middle Ages were humble, those of the Renaissance were proud. I might add that I think that the people of the Middle Ages were more rational, and I think I can demonstrate this, and that we have taken the Propaganda of Renaissance historians rather too uncritically.

We need to filter out the self congratulatory tone of Renaissance critics of the times to be able to judge things clearly. This is most easily done by observing their attitude toward the arts. They applied the term Gothic, meaning barbaric, to the Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris and Salisbury Cathedral in England. But objectively, there is nothing barbaric about these structures, and the engineering that went into them was not done by ignorant people. The Renaissance people did not use the term because they were objective; rather they used it because they were irrationally denigrating of anything medieval. We learned the term from them, and have not forgotten it. There are links below to articles on Gothic and Renaissance architecture. If someone can explain how the one is inferior to the other, I am ready to listen.

But if we go further, looking at science and invention, we can see the same pattern there. With the Middle Ages of 1000 years, and the Renaissance of 250, we could only claim that the Renaissance was more creative scientifically if it made more than a quarter of the progress that the Middle Ages did. Unfortunately for their world view, they did not. I am providing links below to articles on inventions and technology of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. The two times overlap to some extent, so some inventions are listed in both lists, the printing press and the blast furnace being on both. Some important inventions are not on the lists, and the chimney and fireplace, inventions of the Middle Ages, are absent. Also we must recognize that advances include both invention and adoption of foreign ideas. But I will claim that the medieval advances in European technology are clearly more than four times as numerous, and include inventions of greater importance than those of the Renaissance.

We can see the attitude clearly also, if we consider the question of superstition versus science. Today, imperfectly schooled educators tell their students that the Middle Ages was a time of superstition and the Renaissance was a time of rational thinking. I will invite a person who holds such a view to explain the question of witch hunts. We are told they were medieval, but they began coincidentally with the beginning of the Renaissance. Carolingian law, dating from the 8th century, made witch burning a capital crime, because the belief in witches was legally determined to be a superstition. While there were some witch trials in the Middle Ages, the witch hunts themselves began contemporaneously with the Renaissance, and the great witch hunts were all of the Renaissance and the Reformation, after the Middle Ages ended. The estimates I have seen indicate that the Renaissance rate of executions of people accused of witchcraft was about 100 to 200 times the medieval rate. Please see the link on this below.

Even in the area of hygiene, the Middle Ages seem to come out ahead of the Renaissance when the facts are known. Though old school historians still tell us that medieval people were dirty and smelly, it seems that the records show they were clean; by contrast the people of the Renaissance relied on perfume. Please see the link below on the history of bathing.

Answer 4

people wanted to know how the world works and they also wanted their work to become realistic .They also had interests in the classics .

So when massacio brought the revolution he brought it as the same as Ghibirti's

SO everyone wanted the renaissance style since it is better and it can be compared to our lives.

eg.Rome of Cathedral