No. First...

No. First, before I can go there, I need to speak of something more.
Before the practicalities of lenses and long-takes vs short-takes, what might be my attitude to the whole thing?
I have been rereading Tarkovsky's Sculpting in Time. I think that I was interested in what he had to say about this attitude:

Artistic creation demands of the artist that he 'perish utterly', in the full, tragic sense of those words.

From these you can be certain what Tarkovsky made of artist as centre of the work: it is a mistake.
Quoting Tarkovsky, quoting Gogol:

...it is not my job to preach a sermon. Art is anyhow a homily. My job is to speak in living images, not in arguments. I must exhibit life full-face, not discuss life.

More on this, as he writes of Raphael's Sister Madonna:

...for the artist's thought is there for the reading: all too unambigious and well-defined. One is irritated by the painter's sickly allegorical tendentiousness hanging over the form and overshadowing all the purely painterly qualities of the picture.

So that is fairly clear.
I have not been at this business long, but I have shocked at the laziness, fear, and insecurity with which the industry approaches the business of making film. I suppose I might be more sympathetic to those that argue for tradition, or simplicity, who say they have no desire to experiment, they are practitioners, not artists, who truly believe that they are doing a service to the mainstream, entertaining them, making them smile, if they actually did know that tradition.
I once had director of photography tell me that we could not do this or that because we would be breaking the fourth wall. I come from theatre, and there you quickly learn what that term means, but he clearly did not. I would have forgiven him but for the ferocity and stubborness of his position, when he would tell me that this is the way you would do things, this is tradition when this was cleary not true.
I spent a lot of time in the edit suite trying to correct these fundamental errors. I wasn't experimenting either.
But Tarkovsky would go further than this. Even these traditions were false:

A mass of preconceptions exists in and around the profession. And I do mean preconceptions, not traditions: those hackneyed ways of thinking, that grow up around traditions and gradually take them over. And you can achieve nothing in art unless you are free from received ideas.

So you have to start again. What is the essence of cinema? What is cinema about?

...the birth of cinema was when man found the means to make an impression of time.
And often as he wanted, to repeat it and go back to it. He acquired a matrix for actual time.

Further:

The cinema image, then, is basically observation of life's facts within time, organised according to the pattern of life itself, and observing its time laws.

The word facts is important. So often we hear that this or that is symbolic. This is usually just laziness. Cinema's power is not in the symbol:

The purity of cinema, its inherent strength, is revealed not in the symbolic aptness of images (however bold these may be) but in the capacity of those images to epxress a specific, unique, actual fact.

So dismiss symbols. There is no ambiquity, something standing for another. There is first the fact.
Now I think on the films of Tarkovsky. What about that amazing long-take in Solaris, as Berton makes his way into the city, through tunnels and across overpasses? Or the closing shot of Mirror, in the field before the house, the grandmother and her grandchildren? Yes, there is much more here, but first is this Tarkovsky capturing time?
I might decide to dismiss Tarkovsky (I mean how can I do a tracking shot? They are too bloody expensive), but at least it begins the dialogue.