In theory we only need parentheses, prefix operators and a REPL, but mainstream never went down that route.
Anyway the complexity then ends up being custom DSLs and macros.
It feels like you operating with a few keywords you picked up without fully understanding the meaning of them. Typed Clojure was a PhD research project. Experimental. CircleCI experimented with it at one point but the friction was high enough that it never became a standard practice - the annotation burden was significant. You'd be writing a lot of type scaffolding for a language whose entire value proposition includes getting things done with less ceremony. Clojure's power comes heavily from its data orientation. Maps, sequences, heterogeneous data flowing through pipelines. Traditional type systems are deeply uncomfortable with that style. You end up either constraining how you write Clojure, or writing very complicated types to describe simple data flows. Types are there, Clojure does have types, and OMG, non-clojure coders have no idea how expressive they can be. There's just no static checking and that's for good reasons.
Does Typed Clojure solve complexity? - No, not really. Complexity is about incidental complexity from complecting things - and a type system doesn't untangle that (according to Rich Hickey). You can have beautifully typed spaghetti.
I'm not against static typing, and I have used languages with really nice type systems. But honestly, whenever this point pops on forums and people be like "meh, Clojure is not typed" - I immediately know - they probably have only shallow experience working with Clojure code.