Some brief reflections on the problems of our time as they confront me now; on those aspects of them that seem to me fundamental.
Tarkovsky - Sculpting in Time
In our relentless pursuit of comfort and materialism we have lost much as a society. For a brief time, the veneer of progress covered this up but now the light is shining through the cracks. To find an antidote I will turn to Tarkovsky once again. Following on from my previous discussion on his film Stalker, link, here I will be examining his written work “Sculpting in Time.” Or to be precise the ten-page conclusion in which the visionary director outlines his overarching philosophy. This chapter transcends cinema with thoughts on life, creativity, and culture.
His admission that this chronicle of his filmmaking was not written in one go is the first thing of note. This seems a banal observation at first and means the text suffers from a slight lack of coherence. Yet this method gives us a deeper insight into how his approach changed with time. His artistic vision that was once blurred, became clearer with each iteration. This perhaps, is a nod to the title of the book itself. A poignant reference to a sculptor, who creates his art by chipping away at the unnecessary. In his reference to time, he wants us to know there is no peak. Were it not for the finality of death, filmmaking continued to evolve even for one of the greats of modern cinema.
I have been studying the psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan as part of an unrelated project. Yet even in this disparate field there are many parallels. His life work found in “Ecrits” is notorious for its obtusity. He held this same belief that there was no final answer. No unifying theory of the whole. If such a thing were true, then there would be no need for psychologists. If we agree with this premise, then we must avoid becoming a closed system. Unlike many in society today we have not reached the zenith of morality for such a thing does not exist. Instead, we must challenge this view and take in new ideas.
When people today consider historical events, they have a fixed view on which side is good and which is bad. There is no room for nuance or to consider that we do not have the same information available to those in the past. There is an arrogance here that assumes that as more time has passed, we are cleverer and more moral. In material terms we have things better than in the past so we must be right. There is no need for debate, we have the final decision on history. Yet, anyone who has read works from the distant past notices this is not a new phenomenon. In fact, every age felt theirs was the most important time of all.
Large swathes of the population think that progress has been linear. They have bought into the Hegelian dialectic. Hegel suggested that knowledge and truth would converge given a long enough timespan. That our ignorant ancestors acted in a way befitting their limited intellects and lack of knowledge. The evidence does not support this view and we are still no closer to this absolute truth.
We could argue that the opposite is true, and our arrogance threatens to close the window to the past. While the internet has increased the amount of information available, it has also increased the barriers. Search engines filter out anything that does not fit in with our current moral standards. Old books and archives not uploaded to the cloud are all but forgotten. The voice of those who disagree has been stricken from the record. Even at the time the few who challenged the narrative had to give up their way of thinking. They had to either fit in with the collective or face the consequences.
As well as questioning our view on the past he laments the ease with which we have given up much of our autonomy. He references fellow Russian Dostoevsky, as Tarkovsky thought his metaphor of the Grand Inquisitor was very apt. Like this metaphor Tarkovsky was critical of reformers acting on behalf of the masses. That giving all power to Governments or institutions means subjects aren't free. This abdication of power is easier, but it costs us any realistic hope of freedom. They both agreed the creation of a better world can only happen one individual at a time.
“Dostoyevsky had warned people of the 'grand inquisitors' who presume to take upon themselves the responsibility for other people's happiness.”
Tarkovsky - Sculpting in Time
This rejection of responsibility goes beyond politics. Tarkovsky felt that most people abandon their own unique talents because they get distracted by loftier goals. While we all revere the struggling artist who sticks to his principles it’s a tough position to be in. Why do so many bright and talented individuals sell themselves to the banking industry for the most productive years of their lives? There is yet hope though. The advent of the internet may offer a solution. It has provided a way of connecting globally with likeminded individuals. For this reason, some vocations that were previously harder to monetise are now viable options.
This passivity a symptom of a wider issue than career choices. We have fallen into a pattern of asking nothing of ourselves while holding others to the highest standard. Tarkovsky wrote about this in 1985 and everything has since accelerated. Covid was a recent example where the zealots who enforced the rules flouted them given any chance. They found ways to circumvent the rules in private only to condemn everyone else in public. They were happy for others to make sacrifices while accepting no personal responsibility.
Social media exacerbates this problem. People can make detached comments from afar before they put their phone away. They can compartmentalise while watching and waiting for the next scandal. They vigorously defended the media enforced narrative during Covid and attacked anyone who criticised the regime. They wanted others to give up their lives to keep people safe and expected to receive their furlough pay. They never thought about the long-term financial consequences or the effect this had on other people. Who needs Orwell's thought police when most people are happy to do this voluntarily?
For things to change we must do better. On an individual level it is vital to accept that you are accountable for your own existence. Think about the current issues with inflation. You can sit back and wait for the Government or the banks to sort things out or you can pursue more income. The second is harder but within your own control.
We have convinced ourselves that voting is the same thing as democracy. In this confusion the passive allows themselves to become the tools of other people. At best by allowing someone to dictate your life you work towards their goals; at worst you contribute in a way that degrades your own quality of life. Even online with people who are self-aware there is constant talk of waiting for a Caesar that will save us all.
“What am I lying here for?...We are lying here as though we had a chance of enjoying a quiet time...Am I waiting until I become a little older?”
Xenophon - Anabasis
All these problems have existential consequences. The rift between the material and the spiritual deepened when we entrusted others to solve our problems. It is a paradox that as things become easier, our loss of control makes us feel worse. We have let ourselves become powerless, in seeking an easy life. To keep things this way they marginalise or close out anyone with alternative views. As they have defined right and wrong, they demonise anyone that challenges these definitions. Without the requisite skills and resources to remain sovereign, we must conform.
“It is obvious to everyone that man's material aggrandisement has not been synchronous with spiritual progress.”
Tarkovsky - Sculpting in Time
Following on from this call for greater autonomy Tarkovsky is also interested in how we relate to one another. As screens have made us more isolated, we have also become further detached. We no longer try to build relationships with those in the local area, we treat people as commodities. We try to grab as much as possible from the next person to meet our own interests but the more we humiliate others the less satisfied we are.
The best relationships are mutually beneficial. When you only ask favours or treat an employee as little more than a slave everyone is worse off. Most corporations act this way because they only care about profits. They inspire indifference in their workers and a feeling of emptiness in the manager. They can exploit people like resources because of the current economic climate. Yet if we as individuals do the same there is a spiritual cost. For too long in the West we have become accustomed to paying for everything with other people’s toil and suffering.
We have chosen to replicate these conditions focusing on personal productivity. Yet this and our material progress has not led to happiness. We can never satiate our material desires. Contrary to this model of linear progress Marx and Engels state that history chooses for itself the worst of all developments. This is not an anti-capitalist sentiment but a reminder that capital is a tool and not an end.
“He has to accept that his conscience will never be at rest as long as what he does is at variance with what he believes in.”
Tarkovsky - Sculpting in Time
Let us turn our attention now to Tarkovsky’s definition of freedom. Is freedom not our desire rather than wealth? The quest for personal freedom like our reading of history lacks finality, it requires constant moral exertion. We assume that freedom is like a television that once you have it, it is yours forever. But true freedom to pursue what matters is something that we must fight for again and again. When we conflate freedom with money, it leads to an assumption that winning the lottery makes you free. In practice this often leads to a whole new set of obligations. You are now vulnerable from those who want part of your newly acquired wealth. You upgrade your lifestyle and chase things that didn’t matter before. Those who prioritise freedom do so before they are wealthy, and it cannot be bought later.
“The failure to be free is always the result of inner cowardice and passivity.”
Tarkovsky - Sculpting in Time
What alternatives does Tarkovsky offer? He believed that through art man heads towards the infinite. To produce great work, you must forever revaluate against this ideal. A constant striving for more. He also questions whether past civilisations collapsed because of material shortfalls alone. He thinks this convenient narrative hides the true reason for the decline. Did they like us lose sight of this ideal and collapse for cultural reasons instead? Commercialism has disfigured Modern art through its demand for profit. There is little we create that is capable of whispering into eternity.
To aim for the eternal is true self-improvement. To close the gap between this ideal and your current position. It is worth reiterating the difficulty of ignoring material gain. This is difficult as our misplaced faith in Eastern values shows. In the West we have commodified certain Eastern traditions and posited them as an answer to our spiritual crisis. Yet Eastern tradition is not immune to materialism, hence why the East has taken on Western values with very few exceptions. If this type of civilisation was so much better, then why has it suffered the same fate as everything else. We can’t rely on these things as a crux but as Nietzsche said we must find new values suitable for a new age.
“My conception of freedom. The value of a thing sometimes does not lie in that which one attains by it, but in what one pays for it, what it costs us.”
Friedrich Nietzsche - Twilight of the Idols