The argument that has been around since creation itself, and will most likely stay around until destruction of itself, needs no introduction. But for the sake of the uninformed, let's discuss the iconography of the heart.
There is the heart- ventricles surging, pulsating, chambers throbbing and the most famous of them all, beating. We know it well: not by choice, of course, it’s just an inherent thing. There was once depth to it, but now that meaning only applies to it in the most physical sense. About 2.5 inches thick and that is that, all is well, done is done, et cetera et cetera.
Humans got bored- again, not by choice, of course- and decided we needed something more complex to play with. This is where the ♡ enters. No ventricles or chambers to beat down into us. All there is with a ♡ is fluttering flicks of wrists and the graze of skin against paper. It can be frenzied and the sheer energy can rip a tear in the medium. And that is good! It is good.
Is it the ♡ is simple? Well, it’s easy to take in. It’s not anatomical. It’s not difficult. It is a simple form, for all- the aging, the inheritors, the bundles of carefully constructed copper synapses we create to continue forth-- to show off. The shape itself is awe-inspiring. We have all seen a heart, and it does not at all look like a ♡. I could paint out an incredibly vivid Highlights Magazine “Spot the Difference” and describe to you every single notch missing from the ♡ and the frankly disgusting smoothness of a ♡ and I could even go on to explain to you how a ♡ is two dimensional and simply cannot have anything that gives a heart value. But I’ll point out the missing aorta and be done. It seems that an aorta would be easy to add into the ♡. You could add a small tube to the top right bump and it would instantly become more life-like.
But that sort of movement is unnatural to the wrist’s structure by design, so it does not occur, and the ♡ remains easy. After all, Galvanti formed an entire scientific concept based on a small twitch, and he was wrong in the small scheme.
To end this complexly worded ramble: the ♡ is very simple, yes.
Though, humans are very quick to draw connections and God forbid comparisons. And so, simplicity of the ♡ does imply some dastardly things about the heart that I would not want my name to be associated with. Giving credit where credit is due, the heart is not complex. What does a heart even do but beat? Palpate? Salivate? It has one task for one century and then has its control of itself revoked and dies. People have misconstrued having a lot of parts as being complex, when really that is simply just not true.
In both form and function, there is no way to avoid it. Simplicity is inherent.