Does "deceptively simple" mean something is simple or complex?

We got into this discussion in a class on language pedagogy I took recently for my graduate work in English (we also spiritedly discussed the conundrum of reach exceeding grasp or vice-versa.) We came to the conclusion that most cliches are defined by the context in which they’re used. If someone writes that glassblowing is deceptively simple, they will proceed to describe the process of glassblowing and let the reader decide what it means.

If you diagram the sentence, “Glassblowing is deceptively simple,” “glassblowing” is the subject, “is” is the passive verb and “simple” is nothing more than an adjective describing “glassblowing.” (There is no direct object.) Thus, glassblowing is simple. “Deceptively” is an adverb that further defines “simple,” but doesn’t change its definition; ergo, glassblowing is simple, and deceptively so. In theory, you should be able to drop the adverb without changing the meaning of the sentence.

Colophon is right – it’s one of those phrases that can mean two opposite things, depending on context.

Precisely! If you say it’s simple, it’s simple, “deceptively” or otherwise. But if it’s “deceptively” simple… it still is truly simple, but somehow the simplicity misleads the observer.

I’ll go out on a limb and say that 9 times out of 10, when you say something “is deceptively simple”, what you really mean is “its appearance is deceptively simple.” Or some other superficial attribute of the thing is deceptively simple. Not the essence of the thing itself.