“We never fully know what world we are living in. (…) The day after the explosion and collapse of the New York towers, a girl asked me what I thought. I don’t think anything and, like her, I say to myself: what do I think. You have to go around what you don’t understand. Brancusi said a great phrase: ‘Look at my sculptures until you see them’”, this is how the article called “Present Tense” begins, written by Beatriz Sarlo in 2001 and included in his most recent book, “The Two Towers,” which brings together texts from different periods, some unpublished. They are all dedicated, from different aspects and with different perspectives, to current culture.
A timely publication when, in times difficult to understand, in Argentina the State is claimed respect for important institutions for national culture. And in which historical debates, such as the place of intellectuals or the political need to expand the public, are disarmed in the face of an educational crisis that is impossible to ignore. A perplexity in the face of what is happening that is expressed both in the title of Sarlo’s book and in its subtitle: “Can contemporary culture think something new?”
As interesting as the journey that the volume traces through the cultural scenes of the last century (from Sartre and the left to the art market and the impact of the internet on the work of the media); was the talk that NOTICIAS had with the writer, where the role of the statethe role of intellectuals and the failure of the school were the main themes.
NEWS: As a result of the intended cuts Milei’s government to cultural organizations, the question arises as to whether we approve a country model that does not sustain this activity. What is your opinion?
Beatriz Sarlo: The countries we admire sustain culture. France, Germany, Denmark, Holland. Culture is part of what is called “national configuration.”
NEWS: In your book, you review the relationship of intellectuals with culture, from Sartre to Gramsci. From these positions we could ask ourselves whether we should favor cultural production that reaches many or educate people so that everyone can understand the complexities of art or literature.
Sarlo: Without a doubt, Sartre and Gramsci appreciated the impact that their texts and their intentions had, but they had a concept of how culture should be talked about and not how to “hook stupid people so that they are cultured.” They also knew that if they didn’t speak an audible speech they weren’t going to resonate with him. As for the State, today it is not thinking about that question. It is only interested in proving its effectiveness as a State. Neither Sartre nor Gramsci were interested in proving its effectiveness. They were interested in a speech that, they thought, could make people interested in culture. Today both the State and certain intellectuals are interested in proving that they are effective because people read them. If you have that thought, you are going to end up in a bestseller like a slide. In this country, Ezequiel Martínez Estrada could never have sold a copy, as he sold them. At the same time, he became the most important intellectual of his period.
NEWS: Surely read by a small audience.
Sarlo: That audience was expanding, because it also depends on how that audience talks about what they read. If you lock yourself in your house and remain silent, it will not expand, but if you talk convincingly about what you read, it is likely to expand. But to Sartre, Gramci and Martínez Estrada They were not interested in the public. They were interested in the social classes, how they lived and how they related to each other and if culture came into that, great. Sartre’s questions are about the authenticity of the intellectual not about the authenticity of the public. He wondered how an intellectual behaves, writes, relates to other intellectuals in a way that is authentic.
NEWS: Intellectuals are not currently asking those kinds of questions.
Sarlo: If the questions asked today were interesting we would be reading them all the time in the newspapers. Why don’t we debate much among intellectuals? Because the problems that concern us are very different from each other and do not touch upon that important and fundamental core, which is how art and philosophy operate in society.
NEWS: Most of the disputes today take place on X (Twitter) which, due to the length of the posts, does not encourage much thought.
Sarlo: It is aimed at turning every phrase into an aphorism that can be repeated. I am not a prophet to say if that is the thought of tomorrow. But I read ten tweets and I fall into boredom. Furthermore, I do not find the vital difference that the thoughts of intellectuals have among themselves. I believe that social networks do not develop a greater power of thought and knowledge beyond what their very brief interventions say. It is curious, because those of us who write are always looking for a way to lengthen the explanation and social networks look for the opposite way: to shorten what they are presenting into a kind of aphorism.
NEWS: How do you see Milei today?
Sarlo: If it manages to consolidate, it will produce all the traditional effects of the right. If you think that cultural organizations do not have to have so many employees, you are going to cut them in half. The right operates with that perspective, that things get better when they get smaller. And it is a perspective that has a double use. It is reduced in practice or always threatened. The dismissal is on the minds of those who are public employees. On the other hand, I don’t know if Milei is in her right mind, but she makes the style of not being in her right mind one of her political weapons. I think she is a figure of the extreme right who also has a good perception of what stylistic traits suit her. Shouting and going crazy suits you, because people on the street tell you: “I’m tired of listening to politicians.” And by “listening to politicians” they do not mean that politicians deceive, but that they talk at length. I have the habit of following the marches, I stand at the curbs and talk to people. The characteristic phrase is: “they always say the same thing.” And they say it about everyone. There is the inability of politicians to make a speech that really challenges the different sectors.
NEWS: Today there is a need for immediacy that contrasts with an idea of democracy, typical of the ’80s, which meant taking the time to debate and confront ideas.
Sarlo: Those of us who lived through the dictatorship wanted to debate, confront, go to the marches. That’s not there anymore. The contempt that people have for politics is very great. The first thing they say is “they are all the same.” That was not heard in the ’80s. And it indicates the lack of attention they pay to what is happening. This also has to do with the decline in newspaper reading. The question today, furthermore, is how literate the kids leave school. It’s not that they don’t know the lyrics. But they can’t concentrate on a compound sentence. And that increases the bad conditions in which, increasingly, a significant percentage of boys and girls live. In conditions of poverty, they have less and less possibility of concentrating on what literacy requires. This is a drama. And it also has to do with the value assigned to the preparation that teaching provides. The school has lost that immeasurable prestige it had. The question I ask myself is what was happening in family culture at the beginning of the 20th century for there to be a proliferation of lawyers, doctors, teachers. What happened? All of that went into crisis. It doesn’t exist anymore. If you look for it you are wrong.
Image gallery
