The process of intellectual exploration is evident in my writings.The dimensions speak for themselves,2022, in articles andMikulandskán research, 2023, in my text. The articles discussed cubism, dimensions, and for the first time Hypercubism as a concept.
The articles ”Dimensions that Talk” came after my cubist painting research. I first started exploring cubism visually by painting in 2020. Of course, at the same time I also lightly reviewed related literature and had discussions on the topic at art school. Cubism was not particularly popular among both teachers and students.
Despite this, I felt it was my own, perhaps precisely because of its multidimensionality and insight. The subject resonated strongly with my thoughts related to introspection.
The articles ”Dimensions Talk” began a clear transition to examining cubism and dimensions. Introspection is mirrored in cubism, and they are also compared to each other.
Dimensions speak for themselves
Dimensions speak volumes, indeed. Life is a continuous observation of various sharp angles, all kinds of structures, both conceptual and tangible, as well as things and events. Life is just one big interpretation of something, a changing conclusion as information mutates in a sensitive mind, trying to constantly integrate into the reality that one has already created for oneself with imagination. After all, everything consists of only different levels, states, and the view brought by experience and understanding, which serves as the only pedestal for the perspective of life. Nothing real exists, only an endless chain of thought’s need to build something concrete. If one understood that everything is just a world imagined by the mind, would everything collapse then, or would it perhaps be possible to reach the next part of this lifelong journey?
In 2017, I started writing down my thoughts about life because I felt a great need to unravel the mysteries and dark corners of life, but also to better understand how simple analysis and introspection could create a clearer picture of the surrounding reality instead of the one that already existed…
I have noticed that life offers its fruits in a very appropriate and timely manner. When I started writing the work in question (Life is a Circle – Six Phases of Self-Inquiry, 2019), it mostly served the purpose of self-exploration at the time, but I had no idea how it would have such a significant impact on today. After studying fine arts for the past two years, I have taken one of the greatest turning points in art history, Cubism, as the subject of my research. I strongly believe that just as things and events in life can be studied and analyzed, the same elements are strongly present in that art movement. Just as things and events in life must be dismantled and rebuilt in order to understand them, in Cubism it has also been important to observe objects, dismantle them into parts and rebuild them as descriptively as possible, although each author does this in the way they see fit. In this case, I could say that the cubist way of painting and interpreting painting is exactly the same as how life should be viewed and studied, and vice versa. So these are not different from each other, but are one.
The overlapping objects and multidimensional examination of objects in Cubism offer as much and almost the same process of investigation as what would be offered by analyzing personal life events, various things and problem solving. Things are examined and taken apart and assembled in the best possible way into a new, better, but also more complete whole, taking into account every existing angle. The general perception and perspective are shattered, the rules are ignored and then a new kind of analyzed and reinterpreted whole is built, which gives glory to this multidimensional process of mind and thought.
It is relatively easy to interpret and imitate the reality that already exists and is visible to the eye through painting. It is the same as acknowledging something that already exists and copying it as real, without detracting from the process involved, but crushing things and reassembling them in the light of different dimensions offers me personally a completely new world. A world where everything is possible and complete.
Cubism also comes from one of the golden ages of art, the art of the 20th century, whose masters I have enjoyed reading and studying. During that time, many people working in art wanted to create something completely new, as a result of which many concepts of art that are still influential today define people’s work in art. I am mostly attracted to the conscious choice people made at that time to take on a personal mission to produce something new and unprecedented, even though several new movements and styles were belittled or outright criticized. Despite this, the people working on the subject were loyal to their convictions, which later bore fruit. This attitude and passion mostly speaks to me, as well as the will to understand and create something that did not yet exist.
So you could say that people fought for their cause, not necessarily even knowing how much it would affect the future, I think, just because it was very important to these people for themselves. Just as I understand it, Cubism was not a style that people loved when it was born, but its developers still continued to explore the subject.
Cubism also attracts me as a subject because I think it has been left completely unfinished. The people who have implemented Cubism have certainly personally achieved some kind of sufficient understanding for themselves, but I myself see a huge amount of research and learning in it due to the diversity and infinite possibilities of the subject. As when I study life, I also find in Cubism so many different approaches and levels that I want to immerse myself in and which I really thirst to find out thoroughly and with the same intensity that the old masters have shown when working on their own projects and processes. I want to find a satisfactory and suitable view of the subject for myself and delve into the subject both in terms of history and the people who have studied and implemented it, as well as through my own perspective and experience.
…I intend to follow in the footsteps of the old masters, painting my observations with several of the already existing named key methods of cubism, and through this I aim to find a personal thought and understanding of the subject. I intend to combine the different dimensions and angles of life and bring them together with cubism, analyzing and painting, exploring and constructing reality anew, one object at a time. (Miettinen, 2022a)
The previous article foretold future dimensions. Although the dimensions were not yet named at that point, it was clear that they were distinct.
The following article is broader and more analytical. The same topics and themes are repeated, but new insights and reflections are also introduced. The original text contains direct quotes from books on the topics, but I will paraphrase them in my own words for this version.
Dimensions talk, part II
I am writing this text in my studio in Tammela, Tampere. I have been reflecting on the different dimensions of the mind and being even before I started to bring my visions to light through painting in 2017. The whole big turning point of my life was in 2014, when I understood life from a completely new perspective. In the same year, an intensive reflection on living and being began, which has not ended to this day. The different layers of life and different methods for exploring life have brought me closer to understanding myself, but also the surrounding reality. Life has been filled with different perspectives and theories, but also insights and learning experiences that have built me into a human being who craves coherence and solution-orientedness. The world no longer seems so black and white, although on the other hand, everything is ultimately based on very simple and unchanging rules in this unpredictable cross-wave of events and things.
Painting has given me the opportunity to verify my thoughts about reality as memory traces on canvas. For me, painting has never been about striving for art or seeking recognition, but rather about “scientific” experimentation and analysis on the borderland between the mind and the real world. A painting is not just a “painting”, but a piece of the inner world and a journey of exploration towards the true goal of understanding. Personally, I am disgusted by the word “art”, because the pursuit of this meaning and claiming a title for oneself has taken precedence over the real journey of exploration. Everything is “Art”, although in reality most of contemporary art has nothing to do with the kind of art it once was and for which it was once made. How many masters have sacrificed their lives for it, so that today, even mockingly, everything can be said to be that. Of course, this is my personal opinion, which I also hold strongly to. I have not come here to bow down to anyone.
The purpose of this text is to open my soul world and my view on painting, but also to bring out my reflections between the dimensions of the mind and visible reality. I do not see painting as just verifying visible reality, but as bringing various unexplored corners of the soul and understanding to light. The brush and canvas are only, in the end, a gateway to another level of immersion, which is brought out through practice through the seamless cooperation of mind and hand.
Perspective
I believe that the human ability to perceive begins with the interpretation of our three-dimensional reality and the ability to see. As a basis for a deeper examination of the topic, I found a lot of literature to expand my view and my already existing understandings on the subject. One of these works was “Perspektiviiv kulaataiteen historiasssa” edited by Johanna Vakkari. Teppo Jokinen’s descriptions of perspective and its history in particular reinforced my thoughts. Jokinen describes perspective as follows.
Objects in three-dimensional space can be represented on a two-dimensional surface using a geometrically constructed central perspective, in which case the image corresponds to visual perception. This is also called perspective photography. Perspective theory, on the other hand, highlights the methods used to preserve the natural impression of three-dimensionality when photographing on a plane. (Jokinen 2015, 15.)
Central perspective has been used in creating images since the early Renaissance, although the factors related to the theory of central perspective were known even earlier. The perspective vanishing point has already appeared in the geometric optics of Proclus (412-487) since the time of late ancient Greece. Even earlier than this, the Greek mathematician Euclid (c.360-280 BC) wrote about geometric optics, although he did not define the vanishing point himself. According to Euclid, seeing was a physical event and verifiable mathematically and geometrically. This led to the emergence of the theory of perception, which has since served as a framework for the correctness of perspective description. (Jokinen 2015, 19.)
Human vision and the perception of three-dimensional reality, or the reality that we see with our eyes in general, are based on existing mathematical rules. So you could think that on a general level, the reality that everyone perceives through their eyes is very similar, if not completely identical. We, especially as humans, see the same buildings, the same proportions, and the distances between objects.
In the visual arts, perspective expression can be considered a good example, for example, in realistic landscape paintings or portraits, where proportions and the verification and recording of visible reality as it appears at that moment play a particularly important role. Of course, there is no perfect painted landscape or portrait, and there never will be, but the pursuit of this completely follows the mathematical rules manifested in perspective representation. Perspective representation has indeed been used in other art movements, but it has also been violated very strongly, such as in my personal favorite, cubism, which I will return to as a topic later.
I think it is interesting to think that there is a lot hidden inside everything we see. For example, when looking at a cityscape, only the walls of the buildings in front of us are visible, but these are still three-dimensional objects that contain different spaces. The view is only a surface, although the content of the view in question is actually much richer. If the view could be opened onto a flat surface with its contents, it would contain much more information than what can be seen from one angle. For example, when you see a house from the outside, you cannot know what it contains, while when you look at the house from the inside, you can observe the richness that the objects may bring. Or when viewed from one angle, you can only see certain parts of the building, although by rotating the building you can notice this diversity. However, by shaping the concept of perspective, it is possible to capture as much as possible in one view.
In everyday language, the word “perspective” is also used to describe a different state of being or point of view when discussing different things. One could say: “Could you put things in a new perspective?” In this case, it is a question of looking at things from a new perspective. As in painting, there is the possibility of putting things in a different perspective. Very often, things are described based on personal thoughts, experiences and interpretations. In this case, the work is greatly influenced by the individual’s personal experience and interpretation of something, which is inevitably reflected in the end result.
I am particularly attracted to the idea of breaking and rebuilding dimensions and perspectives, but also to bringing different perspectives and thoughts into the same view at the same time. When we talk about the human ability to perceive three-dimensional reality and understand the limitations of movement and a certain structural regularity of reality, I believe that it is possible to build a new kind of channel for thinking with thought and a change in perspectives. A reality that is not held back by the general concept of perspective or mathematical rules, but is defined by the freedom taken by the imagination to interpret what exists and what is seen, but also real structures and things that remain hidden, atmosphere or thought at the same time. There are also examples of this kind of thinking in history, which Kirsti Bergström describes in the book “Perspektiviiv kuvartaiteen historiassa”.
According to the positivist way of thinking, sensory perception was the only valid basis for knowledge in the mid-19th century. This meant a lack of imagination for artists. The invention of the oil paint tube made it possible for artists to go out into nature, both to paint and to sense nature immediately, which led many Impressionists and Post-Impressionists to move from painting in the studio to painting en plein air. Artists of that time, such as Pierre-Auguste Renoir (1841-1919) and Paul Cèzanne (1839-1906), developed a way of expressing reality based on psychological perception using color, movement, and aerial perspective. Linear perspective remained secondary. (Bergström 2015, 321.)
So what is the need to bring out one’s own inner perspective of the mind alongside, or even instead of, a regular and well-structured reality? Imagination has certainly played a large part in people’s lives throughout history, but it is also remarkable how rigidly formulaic human life still is today, and how much each person’s life itself relies on so-called knowledge and theory instead of imagination, courage and free thinking. Things are done in a certain way because they have been done in a certain way throughout history, and everything should follow consistency and current correct knowledge and theory, even though reality is personal to each person and can be shaped by each person to their liking without depriving anyone of anything. Even though we talk about a ”freer world” than ever before, we still cannot help but notice a similar rigid interpretation of reality based on rules, as can be observed in many parts of history. The individual’s interpretation of a self-sufficient and unique reality is still being questioned a lot. So even today, the fearless and courageous stand out from the crowd, doing and representing exactly who they really are.
One could also ask, who really defines reality as true or orthodox? Reality does follow certain rules, especially in this three-dimensional dimension that we perceive, but the truth is that we only perceive it by seeing. Human reality consists of several dimensions simultaneously, which is constantly shaped by changing thoughts, experiences and interpretations. The only thing that really changes is the way we relate and see things from different angles. When thoughts and attitudes change, both the external and internal reality of a person also change. In this case, the dimensions converse with each other simultaneously. The third dimension gains new dimensions through thought. This is very much indicated by the theories and views of the fourth dimension, which the Cubists in particular were interested in in the early 20th century.
The new perspective on geometry proposed by mathematician Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann (1826-1866) in the 1860s provided an alternative to Euclidean principles. Cubists became interested in non-Euclidean geometry in the early 20th century because it allowed for curved space and new ways of thinking about space instead of a linear perspective system. This led to the emergence of space with four or even more dimensions. (Bergström 2015, 322.)
Dimensions
So we live in a three-dimensional reality that we can perceive. Of course, we can also understand one-dimensionality and two-dimensionality. Jim Al-Khalili writes about dimensions in his book “Black Holes, Wormholes and Time Machines” as follows.
Whereas the letter S forms a single curved line, a spot of paint on a canvas makes a shape, or area. Solid objects, such as cubes, spheres, and people, also have a geometric shape that can be called a volume. These cases, line, area, and volume, differ from each other in the number of dimensions that describe them. A line is one-dimensional, 1D, an area is two-dimensional, 2D, and a volume is three-dimensional, 3D. (Al-Khalili, 1999, 27.)
Recently, my personal research has been focused on one more dimension, the fourth dimension. I have been very inspired by the cubist movement in my own paintings, and after reading various works, I have often come across the interest of earlier cubists in the fourth dimension. I also think it is very logical to notice when analyzing cubist works how the concept of perspective, but also of dimensions, has been broken and shattered, and built to correspond to one’s own mind and vision.
In his book “Hyperspace,” Michio Kaku mentions that the fourth dimension inspired Pablo Picasso and Marcel Duchamp and, through this, influenced the emergence of Cubism and Expressionism, perhaps the most important art movements of the 20th century. (Kaku 1994, 42.)
I completely agree with this. I think that Cubism’s multidimensionality and irregularity, but still a subtle and intelligent consistency, are particularly attractive.
As the section on perspective sections shows, the foundation for orthodox perspective description provided by Euclid’s theory of perception, the Cubists were interested in the non-Euclidean one based on Riemann’s theory. I think that the Cubists were attracted precisely by the idea of some kind of reality within visible reality, which I would call the fourth dimension. Pablo Picasso (1881-1973) is known to have said that he paints forms as he thinks them, not as he sees them (Bergström 2015, 332).
This brings us to the topic itself, how I personally interpret and experience the fourth dimension in my thoughts.
In my opinion, the fourth dimension is the dimension of mind and thought – a divine dimension where everything exists simultaneously, regardless of time and place, breaking the regularity and limitations of the third dimension. Imagination and thought create the possibility of traveling in time and beyond the rules and limitations created by physics, yet taking them into account in the forms of the third dimension. With the help of thought and mind, it is possible to create a higher dimension, which allows you to break and dismantle the existing reality into parts and fragments, analyze it and build a new one with the help of thought. Thought and imagination are limitless tools with which the transition from the third dimension to the fourth is only possible.
Jim Al-Khalili also writes in his book about how we constantly see shapes up to three dimensions, but not four-dimensional ones, because they would not fit into our three-dimensional space. He also brought up the idea that we could not even think of a four-dimensional shape. (Al-Khalili 1999, 28.) Of course, I disagree with this.
The human mind is simultaneously a zero-dimensional point in space, a state, and a four-dimensional imagination. Human physicality is initially zero-dimensional, also seen through movement, until as it develops and learns to move, the dimensions increase to the third dimension. The fourth dimension is the next step, the dimension of the mind and imagination.
Seeing and perceiving make it possible to explore and analyze this three-dimensional world, but thought and the ability to examine what one sees in more detail are achieved through imagination and thought. Humans are endowed with the ability to analyze the objects they see, to dismantle and rebuild them on the level of thought into something new, similar to the mind.
Kirsti Bergström has also mentioned in her book “Perspektivii- kvaartaiteen historiasassa” that Cèzanne showed the way to the view “that we perceive more than we see”, which has been a significant factor in the perceptual realism of Cubism. In addition, the knowledge of objects from different perspectives and the structural description of reality originate from him. While Cèzanne studied objects from the inside, Cubists analyzed their objects from the outside by moving around them. Bergström also points out in her article that Cubism was more intellectual than visual art. (Bergström 2015, 331.)
The Cubism movement, which was created in its time, is easier to understand and analyze through dimensions than through perspective. Perspective was created as a mathematical tool for examining and recording perception in visual art hundreds of years before people even knew how to discuss different dimensions. Of course, people have certainly known how to think that there is more than what “the eye perceives”. People have believed in different forms of existence throughout time, such as the paradise, heaven, or hell mentioned in Christianity. Places and states of existence also vary greatly depending on beliefs or religions, but it has long been believed that there is more that is not necessarily observable in “normal life”.
As mentioned earlier, the fourth dimension has strongly influenced and inspired the Cubist movement. Cubists have sought to depict their subjects from many angles at the same time in their works, but when examining the works more closely, the dimensions also mix with each other. Some of the works of Analytical Cubism seem to merge into some gray multidimensional mass of angles, which strongly seems like a dream-like perception of reality, in which there are few rules or consistency. On the other hand, Analytical Cubism is a perfect description of the inconsistent consistency of the fourth dimension, in which objects create endless shadows and angles of themselves and each other on their own and each other’s surfaces.
In my opinion, analytical cubism has been the clearest and most successful depiction of the fourth dimension to date. Analytical cubism has been a great study in trying to show an object that has been disassembled and analyzed by the mind, painted on a two-dimensional surface, in as many dimensions as possible simultaneously.
I find this fascinating precisely because of the sheer impossibility and infinity of the subject. The fourth dimension is practically impossible to verify or physically manifest in this reality we live in, other than by painting and creating a layered illusion of simultaneous and overlapping dimension upon dimension, interpreted from as many angles as possible simultaneously.
The fourth dimension is, at its simplest, divine imagination, thought, and the soul of the universe, a world where everything is possible and there are no limitations.
End result
My enthusiasm for considering the fourth dimension has of course also come from the Cubists’ interest in the subject, but also from my personal thinking about life and thought, but also about painting. I have always felt that my reality includes more than just this boring unimaginative living and being in three dimensions, and I have spent hundreds, if not thousands of hours of my life contemplating life and being an individual. Of course, even after returning to painting, I am grateful to have found the opportunity to take my thinking much further through it. By painting, I can leave, as it were, notes of my thoughts and mind on the canvas, from which I can extract the insights and ideas I need when considering the topics and objects that come to my attention. I want to emphasize that I am not a non-fiction writer, but I have tried my best to consistently present my way of thinking about the general concept of observation and quoting scientific theory to support it. The same applies to dimensions, although I feel that it is also important for me to bring and get my views on my thinking and the way I deal with reality and dimensions up for myself. This is my personal process in developing myself.
Having studied Cubism, I think it is mostly a visual depiction of the fourth dimension. I have fallen in love with this movement, and I intend to delve even more literally into its history and various manifestations, but I will try to take it even further. Recently, I have come across the concept of “Hypercubism”, which will be the subject of my next research. I have received several links from a surprising acquaintance regarding the subject, and to people who have already studied it. The subject does not seem to be very new, at least I have not found that much information about it yet, but let me take this as a challenge for myself as well.
I would like to add a few more thoughts on the subject. It is easy to live and cling to the anchor points and temptations and distractions offered by this three-dimensional world, so that thought and imagination do not truly have their rightful place. Thought is given to every thinking being as a tool to travel in time, past and present, and to create journeys into the future through thought, as if as a route to the future.
Time, on the other hand, is just a concept and measure created by man to define something. If time were to be removed from the interval, then the future visualized through the mind could be transformed into reality simultaneously with the thought. There is a possibility to live the future as reality already today.
With the right attitude, it is possible to reach a state where imagination and thought are the only dominant state of being, and life is no longer dominated by the need to grasp or cling to meaningless attachments brought by “time” or worldly goals that clutter the pure state of being of the mind. A state of being that could also be called the multi-stranded simultaneous state of being of the fourth dimension.
Parallel dimensions could very well be just different outcomes of different solutions. In this case, people create different dimensions for themselves every day and travel through space unknowingly, creating their reality differently moment by moment, one choice at a time.
We constantly live in our shared, but also separate, realities, simultaneously, creating our path according to the situations our choices lead us to. (Miettinen, 2022b)
The text Mikulandská’s Studies is a writing from my time as a visual arts student in Prague. It is a personal expression of my thoughts in text form. Studying in Prague, despite all the beauty and excitement of the city, was a difficult and educational journey, but essential for Hypercubism. At the Prague Academy of Fine Arts, I realized after discussing with a professor how I would like to paint and produce artistic works, and the same continues to this day. Although Cubism itself was not popular at the Academy of Fine Arts, even there.
Mikulandská studies
A month of staying and “studying” in Prague is behind us. The city is incomparable with all its fine architectural structures and castles built faithfully in the old world style. Spring is truly making its appearance here. The base is a back room in a very comfortable apartment on Mikulandská. The apartment as a whole exudes history with all its books and old objects. The landlady and host have also been more than I could have hoped for. A warm couple who, in their own busy lives, have dedicated themselves to spending their time doing what they enjoy in life, at least from the perspective of an observer. Things are said when there is something to be said.
Studying is different than in Finland. The teacher is there once a week, speaking Czech with about 20 other students for hours, discussing contemporary art, films and whatever else. The students present their work, receive criticism, both good and bad. The criticism is said to be direct. During this month, I have talked in English with the teacher for about 30 minutes, and given a 20-minute presentation about myself. The topic of the discussion was summarized: Forget about Cubism. As if I had heard this sentence before. Another point was to think about the idea of myself. What am I, and what could be the other Anssi who would do something different, if I understood him correctly. The teacher is nice, and so are the other students. Compared to Finland, the atmosphere feels much more social, even though the Czechs themselves consider themselves a bit antisocial.
My painting style has been a bit cubist for several years, and the subject has been close to my heart. However, many people have urged me to move on from the subject, because the golden age of that style was already in the last century. So nowadays it would be good to do something completely different, that has been the general opinion on the matter.
During this month I have been thinking about it a lot, even perhaps on the verge of my first real creative “crisis”. I started painting a very multidimensional geometrically arranged view and observation of the city of Prague in my usual way, but I got tired of what I saw and in fact the painting began to disgust me. The painting is gloomy, dark, lifeless and unimaginative. Technically the painting may be very sure, but it has very little to do with the way of thinking that I would like to express in my paintings. The painting should also be free and fun, enjoyable, not constant analysis and heavy construction. Cubism is certainly not a very light subject, but it requires a lot of analysis and interpretation of things, but I believe that there is also a slightly freer path for it, and perhaps also through this a continuation of a more traditional way of thinking about cubism.
Let’s see where the road takes us. The deep desert of failure that has been humming for a month is finally starting to green up again in my mind. The vision is clear and simple. Few colors, black lines and clear structures. Fragments of reality. Sudden observation and interpretation. They will be the guiding force in my future studies. (See Images xx)
I haven’t really thought much about what I’ve done before, or how it should affect someone or whether it has any significance for someone else, because I’ve basically done it for my own personal exploration. That’s why discussions about contemporary art and how it should be or how I could make some kind of contemporary art are a bit strange. I personally don’t think anyone should do something with the goal of it fitting into some kind of definition, or that it would be a solution that conforms to some kind of general opinion. I don’t think that many of the old masters painted because someone told them to make contemporary art that conforms to contemporary art. They painted because it was their life and passion. The fact that someone now imagines that they understand and hold the mantle of defining something as something is a great thing for that person.
People build shocking walls in front of themselves and their creativity just to realize someone else’s vision of something. Whatever that may be. In my opinion, that is not the meaning of art at all, to dictate what is done and in which direction, and what has always been and what is appropriate in this time. A useless, but still present, hustle. Letting people do and be. It does not mean that if you paint pictures, you have to automatically and immediately jump on the crest of the wave of contemporary art, which is hardly even possible now, and what does that even mean in the end. And perhaps when you break boundaries and guidelines, and do not listen to skeptics and pessimistic opinions, you can find a much greater understanding with yourself than you might believe. Pats on the back and bouquets of flowers do not last long, but understanding remains forever. And maybe it’s better to leave something with a thought and a soul in the world and be anonymous for the rest of your life, than to party and do nothing. Life is that famous barter.
The real meaning is the thought and insight, the view of something. Pure vision. And how it is placed on the canvas is a personal matter for everyone. Yes, people who know art history should remember that many of the great true masters did what they wanted, not what was expected to be done. (Miettinen, 2023).