© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi �0.��63/9789004357�67_003 PG3298 chapter 1 “Cut Away Excess and Straighten the Crooked:” The Simplicity of Contemplative Cinema in the Light of Plotinus’ Philosophy Thorsten Botz-Bornstein In an article written in 1998 and published in English in 2004, I was intrigued by Plotinus’ and Tarkovsky’s parallel approaches towards the aesthetics of images. Both the philosopher and the film director see the image as an organic link between idea and form, which leads them to the development of an aesthetics of the non-symbolic image. For Plotinus, the image represents the aesthetic and ontic link between the material world and the idea; it represents the link between the ideas residing in the higher intellect and forms, which are the sense expressions of the ideas. Both Tarkovsky and Plotinus believe that images can be communicated without passing through the intermediary of the intellect. This does not mean that the act of seeing an image has become a matter of mere feeling. On the contrary, subjectivism is most consistently excluded from this aesthetics. Ploti- nus’ “grace” as an essence perceptible in the form (which remains nevertheless distinct from the exterior aesthetic form because “outside” we find only signs), overcomes both subjectivism and objectivism. The same is true for Tarkovsky’s (often metonymic) images expressing themselves all alone. The Plotinian idea of contemplation, that is, the fact of seeing the world “in a simple way” by avoiding all rationalist or scientific deformations, remains important for this way of seeing.1 1 This does not mean that for Plotinus images can be communicated without passing through the intermediary of the soul’s intellect. Images are part and parcel of the integral function- ing of intellect. However, images can be communicated without necessarily requiring the intermediary stage of discursive analysis for their perception (though ultimately discursive analysis remains a necessary intermediary for understanding of their meaning and import). There is in Plotinus a distinction between the higher Nous and the nous of the soul: the for- mer is the second hypostasis of being, the latter is the higher faculty of the soul in close rela- tion but not identical to the divine Intellect (i 1, 2). Plotinus also distinguishes between the discursive activity of the soul which moves from one concept to the other (see iii 7, 11 and v 3, 6, 15) and he points to the non-discursive self-thinking activity of the higher intellect (noesis) 0003303018.INDD 8 8/16/2017 6:47:22 AM