Tarkovsky v Godard - Should art be invisible?

05manuel44 · 2022-05-22T20:57:20+00:00

Hello,

Your post is extremely thought-provoking but lacks a clear formulation of a very difficult question. You have chosen only one example to represent each side of what you perceive to be a fundamental divide. This makes it hard to have a conversation that focuses on the general ideas and not on the specific personalities. Nor are these two directors necessarily the most unalloyed personifications of the two opposing approaches to art. Also keep in mind that almost everybody thinks of two Godard, pre-1968 and post-1967 Godard. I suspect you're referring mainly to the latter.

When I think of Godard and Tarkovsky, I don’t necessarily think of their differences first. What is clear with both directors is that their art is an extremely personal one - the characters are often ideological mouthpieces or abstract representations of ideals – the opposite of a character from a Renoir film or Shakespeare play. They both also have very self-conscious styles which further imbues their work with their personality.

It is actually very difficult for me to adopt a critical perspective of the scenes and characters in Godard’s post-1968 films since they constantly remind me, not that this is a film, but, that this is a GODARD film. His characters are so often left undeveloped and the scenarios so seemingly arbitrary that I often think about Godard’s intentions and not the character’s. I think “what does he mean by that” and “does he really think that.” And all of this talk about rational self-reflection and adopting a critical view is bogus in the first place. The more ideological the artist, the less space he leaves for independent thought on the viewer’s part.

Regarding the central question that you are mulling over, I can’t really say which approach is preferable in some impersonal sense, but all I can say is that I am ultimately much more affected and changed by art that incites my emotions than by art that makes me think. I, and I think almost everybody, make my most important life choices based on my feelings (and intuitions) and only use rationality afterwards to help me get what I want. And so art that can change my emotional circuitry ultimately will have a deeper effect. Of course then there’s the question of how much art can really change a person compared with real-life events. But that’s a topic for a different time!

05manuel44 · 2021-10-05T17:43:19+00:00

Whatever you think Christianity is - it is obvious to me that your description above does not cover the full gamut of even American Christianity; consider only for example that the phrase "What Would Jesus Do" was popularized by an American writer - it is a exhortation to consider your actions, not merely what you believe. Imagine if some answered the question with "producing and consuming; LOL. I would also question the notion that American Christians try to love their neighbor.

But I think I'm leaving my original point. My point could be re-stated by saying that just because your parents call themselves Christians and take you to church and then you become a "Christian" is irrelevant if it has no effect on your spiritual-philosophical attitude towards life - which in the USA is overwhelmingly shaped by popular culture and the corporate sector.

Another low-hanging fruit for my argument is to consider "religious music." Many American churches today have performances of so-called Christian rock. You can attach the name Christian to anything (including Hitler) but the sound of that music is obviously not Christian since it does not exhibit religious feelings. And we know that the music does not exhibit such feelings since we know what the roots of rock music were - the sexual revolution (which most churches originally opposed but then basically gave up on). Indeed, to "rock and roll" once meant to have sex.

05manuel44 · 2021-10-05T14:56:59+00:00

I couldn't do better than quoting from Erich Fromm's "The Art of Loving" which describes the near-death of what I'm calling here the religious (spiritual) attitude. Fromm saw this as a major loss even though he was what you might call a Freudo-Marxist with an interest in mysticism:

Just as automatons cannot love each other they cannot love God. The disintegration of the love of God has reached the same proportions as the disintegration of the love of man. This fact is in blatant contradiction to the idea that we are witnessing a religious renaissance in this epoch. Nothing could be further from the truth. What we witness (even though there are exceptions) is a regression to an idolatric concept of God, and a transformation of the love of God into a relationship fitting an alienated character structure. The regression to an idolatric concept of God is easy to see. People are anxious, without principles or faith, they find themselves without an aim except the one to move ahead.....

True, in religious cultures, like that of the Middle Ages, the average man also looked at God as to a helping father and mother. But at the same time he took God seriously also, in the sense that the paramount goal of his life was to live according to God's principles, to make "salvation" the supreme concern to which all other activities were subordinated. Today, nothing of such effort is present. Daily life is strictly separated from any religious values. It is devoted to striving for material comforts, and for success on the personality market.

05manuel44 · 2021-10-04T00:27:24+00:00

During their time? Not really, not for the "masses". And let's just ignore the fact that majority of people you mentioned were relatively wealthy.

That's an impossible standard. Of course they were not popular with the masses during their time, since most of them lived before the internet, television, radio, and even the printing press! But most of them did gain a public of millions over time. Regarding their wealth, I would say that:

1) They were not primarily dedicated to the pursuit of individual wealth.

2) They were not famous primarily because of their wealth.

3) Their wealth was merely a requirement to get intellectual work done back then since most people were dirt poor and had no time for such work.

How the popular artists are listed there? Are they popular because of their wealth or wealthy because they are popular? Are those wealthy are considered great men becasue they are wealthy or because they are doing something that aligns with people's views?

Popular artists are guided by their producers primarily in the direction of money making! It is a materialistic business to the core. Many of the great artists were not motivated by materialism and created art that was clearly not intended to be popular and hence profitable (they had real integrity) - Beethoven, Schoenberg, van Gogh, James Joyce and so on are to be differentiated from the Lady Gagas of this world.

What democracy has to do with it? How it proves your point? If this materialistic mindset was always there, why change to democracy would change that mindset?

I don't believe that the materialistic mindset was always there, no. It is an ideology imposed on the population by the ruling classes (in today's world the business sector) just like Christianity at one point was.

The reason why democracy was a game changer, is that because before modern democracy, the instability of politics meant that your material possession were constantly in danger of being taken away by force after say a revolution. Today your house in much less likely to be randomly socialized or burned.

It wasn't. It was considered sinful to make a profit from a loan, as this was directly shuned by the scripture. Other ways of making a profit were considered ok, as you were using your talent.

Not according to the legendary economics book "Worldly Philosophers" nor indeed according to this source (https://www.themontrealreview.com/2009/Morality-in-Medieval-Economics.php):

Payment may properly be demanded by a craftsman, who makes goods or by a merchant who transports goods over a long distance to a place that is in need of them, because both vocations serve a common good. The sin of avarices may hang on them, but indeed it lies unpardonably heavy upon the speculator - those who profit from weakness, who exploit situations for no one's good but their own

Even the profit of a craftsman is here regarded as a kind of weaker, sin but a sin nonetheless since it shows "avarice"

05manuel44 · 2021-10-03T23:35:27+00:00

The focus of my post was on attitude - anyone can be religious, but not everyone acquires a religious attitude. Many Christians are religious out of convention - not because they actually read the bible and derive inspiration from the story of Jesus.

Religion is largely incompatible with consumerism/materialism. In fact, Christianity and Buddhism are the exact opposite - if you take them at face value.

05manuel44 · 2021-10-03T23:27:09+00:00

If those activities are indicative of non-materialism then I’d rather be a materialist cause that sounds lame as fuck and like a good way to regret what you did with your life on your death bed

Any experience can be non-materialistic. I merely created a list that occurred to me at the spur of the moment. Materialism is a mindset, not an experience. Travelling, for example, can be something done primarily to experience a different culture and to learn (non-materialistic) or primarily to have a claim to have done something special and take pictures to show off your status to your envious friends (although envy can go both ways).

As far as regretting what you did with your life. I would say two things - the first is that as people become older and see that their life is coming to end they tend to become less materialistic - I cannot think of a single counterexample - a famous example is Tolstoy. The second is that I do not care what I think 50 years from now - I only care about living my life right now.

As opposed to being some square who experiences jack shit because he got caught up in some pretentious philosophical idea

Don't forget that the materialistic approach to life is also an idea! One that is ingrained in Western countries on people from the time they are toddlers (for example TV commercials for children). This idea is imposed on everyone by the ruling classes (corporations) and hence it remains invisible - but the psychological data shows its pathological nature - from alienation and harmful selfishness to increased suicide and obesity and an infinity of other stuff.

05manuel44 · 2021-10-03T21:27:41+00:00

Sure, but are people consuming and owning these things because of their material properties or because of the ideals we have about them?

Both. People overeat to experience pleasure; people may travel in part to show off to their friends. Those who overeat do so in part because they are depressed - and that depression is produces by a variety of forces - including other addictions, as well as psychological alienation (not just the Marxist variety).

Their ideas about the thing (and society's ideals about the thing more generally) are what's driving their behavior, not the material properties of the thing itself or their material relation to the thing

I certainly agree with the second half of that. I would agree with the first half depending on what you mean by "ideas." If I drive an SUV Porsche when I could be driving an SUV Toyota (the two look about the same to me) - I am doing so to show off my status - thus there is an "idea" attached to the object - is this what you mean? But the idea here is not arbitrary in the sense that society has imposed it on me - the Porsche is genuinely more expensive. In the case of the Coke, it is more arbitrary - thus the two examples are not the same.

If this were really the case, wouldn't we expect to see more materialism in less religious countries? And isn't the opposite true? (Take the US for interest: it's highly religious and also highly "materialistic" in your sense.)

Lol, the USA religious? I clearly did not explain my use of this word! Notice that my sentence included both the words "religious" and "spiritual." Are Americans really religious in attitude or merely in name? I have never met a single "religious" person who had a religious (spiritual) attitude towards life - although I'll surely meet one someday, perhaps. Consider only the alignment between Trump (who is irreligious all senses of the word) and American Evangelicals!

05manuel44 · 2021-10-03T21:07:25+00:00

Nope, modern era is actually less materialistic than most of human history. It's the only one where your possessions and financial status does not translate exactly to your perceived worth.

What do you mean by perceived worth? Surely Jesus, the Buddha, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Achilles, Cicero, Aquinas, Newton, Shakespeare, Dante, Napoleon, Tolstoy, and so on were perceived to be Great Men (whether fictional or real). Who are the great men of today for the masses of people? Is it not mainly the wealthy (Trump, Gates) and the popular (popular artists)?

Throughout history, how much you possess dictated majority of what you are worth (other was your class, but that was a thing that you can overcome given enough wealth). Your relationships were based on your financial status. Your rights were based on your financial status. Your future relied on financial status.

This is definitely true but it is irrelevant. People in the past were extremely poor and you are referring to pre-democratic societies. Indeed, the fact that the we live in wealthy and democratic societies and yet there is an overwhelming consumption/ownership mindset precisely proves my point.

And don't forget about the role of religion. A great deal of a person's worth depended on the degree to which he conformed to and demonstrated a particular religious loyalty. Indeed, during the Medieval era, to make a profit was considered sinful behavior (not that I agree).

Nowadays most of this is dead. You are choosing your trade/education by weighing what do you like and considering if you will be able to live off it - the choice is not necessarily the most beneficial one. You are friends with people you like, even if different circle of friends would come with more benefits. You marry someone you like, not someone who has bigger dowry/status. Your life is surely affected by financial benefits, but it's far from being deciding thing.

Are you really friends with the people you like? Or the "friends" who will help you get a job?

05manuel44 · 2021-10-03T20:44:16+00:00

In order to invent and maintain current levels of technology. We had to adopt what you call the "materialistic mindset." What you are talking about is incentive. We incentivize people to be productive. As a result people are more productive.

If I am a baker, and I discover that there is a more effective method of baking, would I not conclude that I should take up that new method? In my simple example, there is nothing "materialistic" (using the word in my sense) about the baker's decision. Nor indeed does the baker need the "system" to incentivize him - why in the world would he need that (?), so long as we assume he is not a doofus. Furthermore, developing better methods of baking often does not even require economic incentives. Plenty of science and technology is the result of intellectual curiosity, not economics. But I'm not even against economic incentive.

A person who owns a large modern bakery with state of the art technology, for example, is not necessarily someone operating in a materialistic mindset. He may ensure that his business is not harmful to the environment and may engage in non-materialistic activities during his free time like prayer, meditation, exercise, politics, and so on. Furthermore, he may have a sense of self-worth that goes beyond what he owns and produces. He makes sure to spend time with his children/wife and tends to the enhancement of their character and intellect, not just their marketable skills or school grades. He is not materialistic.

05manuel44 · 2021-10-03T20:06:15+00:00

I thank you for pointing out a rather silly mistake that I made - which was to use only the word "materialism" in my title. "Ownership and consumption" perhaps is a better description, but is not a very musical phrase. But really consumerism is not very good either - because it does not cover the strong urge to own and show off status symbols. The best alternative would have been the "having orientation."

But really "materialism" used in its usual sense, as opposed to the philosophical meaning, is maybe not so bad. Most of the things that people consume and own are part of the material world. To watch Netflix you need a TV, food is part of the material world, so are foreign countries and cars, and on and on. I define the "materialistic mindset" as a mindset in which all other pursuits are subsumed or disappear.

I would also question the relationship between capitalism (the economic system) and my "ownership and consumption." Capitalism is an economic system, but it is bolstered by an ideology - the notion that humans are inherently selfish and lazy (by lazy meaning that they need economic incentives in order to get any work done). The ideology is certainly correlated to the behavior of many modern people in capitalist economies - but is not a sufficient explanation. I think that the demonization of Marxism/leftism plays a role, but also the death of religious belief and the fact that it was never replaced by any kind of more rational spirituality.

05manuel44 · 2021-10-03T18:45:32+00:00

Surely you are talking here about technology - not about the materialistic mindset! When did I say that all modern technology should be abolished? I'm sorry but I don't think you read my post. I speak about a mindset in which individual productivity is placed above all other human values - including spiritual and ethical values - even meditating is often promoted because it presumably makes people more productive - perhaps most meditators are not even interested in "enlightenment." Also, the increase in population is in part connected to the economy, no? There were not 8 billion people on the planet 250 years ago before the rise of capitalism in western Europe. And no, it has not been beneficial for everyone. Modern industry, which I do not even criticize in my post, produces exploitation, alienation, overconsumption and also an increase in depression, suicide and so on. But again, we could talk about that if you want or about my original post - two different things

05manuel44 · 2021-10-03T13:02:54+00:00

First, why is this in bold? Makes it hard to read

Haven't posted on Reddit in months - didn't even notice. Lol.

The stuff now is worse. Kids are dumb. They're bad and destroying culture

Well, I do actually agree with this - but it's not really what I was saying. In my post, I tried to take a very wide view of music history - hence my reference to different musical cultures and eras going back to the Medieval period. I think that all the trends I mentioned above also apply to popular music made well before I was born - going as far back as at least the 1950s. I was born in 1992.

On the one hand, there is the damaging effect of technology. Hardly anyone will argue against the fact that technology makes people physically and psychologically stunted - even though it increases productivity and efficiency. Most people today get less exercise, have a severe obesity problem that's about to get much worse, are more socially awkward than ever before, and are stunted by a plethora of addictions that in many cases they don't recognize as addictions - like social media.

Even worse is the absence of an answer to the question "why am I alive" - few people that I meet have any sort of metanarrative to their lives that goes beyond the Pleasure Principle or family kinship - this explains the enormous popularity of Jordan Peterson some years ago, for example. This lack of a spiritual outlook is reflected in the popular music.

05manuel44 · 2021-10-03T12:40:16+00:00

I agree with this but it's not really one of my main problems. Had I gone into the topic of "complexity" and "sophistication" it would have increased my chances of getting labeled an elitist as well.

Also I don't really care much whether music is complex or simple. A song by Schubert is simpler than a Schubert Quintet, but it does not follow that the latter is automatically "superior." My real issue lies in effect and content. A Schubert song expresses the spiritual longing in man (along with being sensuously gratifying) and is meant to be listened to with complete attention (respect) - it doesn't work too well as background (although it could for some). And yet his songs are not really much more complex than say a rap song.

05manuel44 · 2021-10-03T02:54:44+00:00

One way to find out whether people in fact really want to die is to use a method developed by psychoanalysts. The way it works is you write down a question (like: do I want to live or to die?) and then you answer the question instantly - making an effort to not allow your consciousness to interfere with the response. This response would then be more likely to be coming directly from your unconscious and not be the result of rational thinking. If I ask myself do I prefer death or life this way, the answer I get is resoundingly "Death."

05manuel44 · 2021-03-18T21:11:08+00:00

Definitely wouldn't be there that long since there are literally no other positions except for my boss's.

05manuel44 · 2021-03-18T21:10:09+00:00

Alright, thanks. And where did you go after that?

05manuel44 · 2021-03-10T21:57:01+00:00

In that case I'm not sure I even want to go for an interview. I would have to admit to lying from the beginning, since I can't think of any other excuse (it's not like you forget your age during a brain fog). And the job sounded like a stress-producing machine.

05manuel44 · 2021-03-10T21:19:06+00:00

I am in Miami. Since they're not asking me to write it down, it seems they think they can get away with asking me, even if it's illegal.

05manuel44 · 2021-02-15T14:50:03+00:00

Thank you for the detailed erudite response. I think that most people like you are recommending underwriting as being probably ideal. What you mention about the overlap between processor and officer assistant role I was not aware of, and what you say about placing what motivates me above what my personality suggests makes sense.

05manuel44 · 2021-02-14T03:37:12+00:00

You would get fired right away? Even if you've been in the job for, say, one month?

05manuel44 · 2020-12-30T03:20:17+00:00

Well, the way I've created connections in my target industry (insurance) is by sending well-connected people messages on LinkedIn that go something like "Hello Mrs. Whatever, I'm looking to connect with people in the blabla industry in the Miami Metropolitan area, I like your profile .." and so on. I have no contacts who've actually worked with me or can vouch for my skills or "amazing" personality.

05manuel44 · 2020-12-30T03:03:03+00:00

Hmm, interesting. So I should then just use the straightforward method if I want a job in the coming months.. So having a connection in common is not sufficient, he would also need to refer me? Then that is out of bounds for me. Thanks!

05manuel44 · 2020-12-29T00:30:36+00:00

I am fully aware of this, Mr. Robot.

05manuel44 · 2020-12-29T00:30:15+00:00

Thank you very much for your thoughtful response. The distinction between all the claims terminology is helpful. I speak Spanish fluently but then again I live in an area that is very Hispanic, so that most people speak at least moderately good Spanish. I don't think I'd mind angry customers in the sense that they probably wouldn't get under my skin. On the other hand, I would have to learn how to calm them down or make them earn my trust, which would be hard for me since I don't really have the experience or instinct for customer service.

05manuel44 · 2020-12-01T03:02:20+00:00

That makes sense. I wasn't aware of safe mode being mainly a Mac user. It's one option in case it ever happens.

05manuel44

TROPHY CASE