Complexity vs Simplicity

When I started learning jiu-jitsu and judo, I immediately appreciated the broad, intricate and varied syllabus.  If I was unable to make a particular technique work, be it a throw, groundwork technique, or restraint & control application I was nevertheless making progress in other areas, which was good for my morale.  I would struggle for a few minutes with the problematic technique, try some things, get some tips, and often get a bit frustrated, but then my sensei would move us onto something else.  Over time, the progress on other fronts would help me get unstuck on my problem technique (really techniques), since the underlying principles all intersect and what I learned elsewhere I would eventually be able to apply.  From time to time techniques would cease to work, or fail on a particular partner, even in cooperative practice, but nothing was permanently stuck.

By contrast, when I took some ken-jitsu (japanese sword class, performed initially with a wooden bokken) we started by doing an entire class of a single cut (maybe there were a couple of variations), with YELLING.  The next day I had a raspy voice, sore arms, and blistered hands.  But I was fascinated by the sustained demand for focus, the feeling of surging energy, and the occasional blasting through a pain barrier that such narrow training demanded.  Truly a complementary experience to what I was used to in jiu-jitsu.  And yet, "jiu-jitsu comes from the sword".

As I progress with my martial arts, I have begun to ask myself what hidden possibilities lie behind simple-seeming movements, while complex techniques reveal themselves to consist of common components and principles.

Is it better to start with the simple and build to the complex, or to start with the composite and discover simplicity?  For me, the latter approach proved a better starting point, but eventually the two perspectives must intertwine.