The tense of the final verb does not always dictate the tense of an earlier て form, but it inferred from context.
Very often, the tense of the て form verb does match the tense of the verb at the end of the sentence, but context is key. You can think of the て form as having neutral tense, as its tense is always dependent on the rest of the sentence.
Looking at your examples:
We know that television has already been invented, so the only sensible interpretation of this is that it happened in the past. The 楽しまれています doesn't force a present tense.
If we can assume that the carving still exists, then the present tense is the only sensible understanding. However, if it had been established that the carving had been destroyed, then in English we'd have used the past tense. In reality, Japanese does care about the tense here; you can't really say that the で has a tense. You have to give it one in an English translation, but don't put too much weight on the translation in determining the meaning in Japanese.
In your first sentence, you can use time words to put the て verb into the past. It's not the most natural sentence, but it makes sense.
Yesterday I went to Kobe, and tomorrow I'll watch a film.
Note how it changes the nuance as well, though. In your sentence, the implication is that you watched a film in Kobe, now it sounds as though it was a day trip.
I have read that in good Japanese prose, the て form should be used sparingly to join sentences, because it robs the writer of defining the connection between them. A conjunction would remove any ambiguity.