Talk:Neoplasticism

Untitled 2022 comment

This article should be rewritten. It has hardly anything to do with the topic. There is little in this article that should be kept. The sources are good. The section 'Assumptions' should be deleted. The French version is better but could be improved as well. I could rewrite it but I have first other issues to finish. Mirabella (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I've deleted the "Assumptions" section, since it wasn't referenced and I couldn't find a source saying something similar. I've replaced it with a section quoting Mondrian in his most famous essays. I haven't finished yet as I'm trying to summarise Mondrian's thoughts based on his essays. I'll see how it goes, as this isn't so easy. Dealing with the concept of 'plastic' is not straighforward. Egrabczewski (talk) 08:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Theo van Doesburg

I am far from expert, however there is little reason to list Theo van Doesburg as a founder of Mondrian’s style and technique... in fact, Theo van Doesburg was hardly a painter, rather a very accomplished critic, publisher, organizer and bon vivant... or so I opine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.213.251 (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

For all its many faults, I don't think that the article credits van Doesberg as founder of Mondrian's style. The article Theo van Doesburg explains their relationship better. Meanwhile, this article is very poorly sourced. So if you can improve it, please do. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Bibliography

Egrabczewski, you have done some great work on this article. It is well on the way to achieving WP:Good Article status (see that article for the criteria if you wish to have that mark of achievement).

One item that jarred with me is the section called "Bibliography", perhaps because it is used so inconsistently across Wikipedia. I prefer to be clear about whether it should read "Sources" (cited in the article) or just "Further reading". Right now, I think it is the latter: can you clarify? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks JMF. I like your cleanup of the article too. I'm focussing on content right now. Sorry about the lack of change comments. I hope it's not too frustrating.

Regarding 'Bibiolgraphy', I think it was already there when I started editing the article. I agree that we should have Sources/References and Bibliography/Further Reading. I'm not fussed about what they're called but it would be nice to have some consistency across Wikipedia. Egrabczewski (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid that is unlikely to happen because editors have their own preferences and at each article it is for local consensus to determine what is to be done. Usually it is not an issue because there is only one significant list but here there are two so we need to make a distinction and thus have two section heads. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

New Article based on Wikipedia Netherlands Article

I have completed work in moving the Wikipedia Netherlands article into English. The previous article was seen as inadequate, so hopefully this one will be more comprehensive. It takes some effort to understand the Dutch concept of "beelend" and I've had to go to many original sources and translations, but they themselves are a bit of a problem when you use a word like "plastic" to translate it.

I would have submitted this for review however past experience tells me that submitting an article that already exists on Wikipedia is likely to be rejected. Having said this, my article "New Visualization" was reviewed by StarTrekker without comment. This new article needs a bit of tweaking but should be essentially okay.

I've never made such a big change to an existing article all in one go, and so I hope this doesn't upset the Wikipedia community! Egrabczewski (talk) 10:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

It would have made best use of your time and work if you had posted your proposed text here first and invited comment, before making it live. I can't easily compare and contrast the versions on mobile but my initial reaction is negative, based only on your non-collaborative approach. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Apologies. I've never seen a whole article posted in the talk pages before. Is that the usual practice? My intention was not to not collaborate, but the initial comment on the previous version of the article was not positive and it was clear that the article needed some work. Since the Dutch version of the article was better, especially since most of the original documents are in Dutch and have not been translated, then it's no surprise that it was much better informed that the English version, which is why I used that as the basis for this one. Most articles on Wikipedia are started by an individual and later changed, so I take your point. But given the state of the previous article then I thought it better to combine the two. If you would prefer to revert back to the previous version and discuss the current one then I'm happy with that. But the facts in the new version are pretty sound and the article is more comprehensive and makes more sense that the previous one. Either way, the article is now in the hands of others to edit. Apologies once again about making such large changes, especially if you have a particular interest in this topic. Egrabczewski (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I certainly recognise that the Dutch material is probably going to be better, for the obvious reasons you state. It is also true that the original article was not great, but a complete WP:NUKE should be proposed first. You can certainly WP:BEBOLD provided you recognise the risk of the whole thing being reverted. As for posting a draft for comment, what I should have said was "post a draft in your sandbox and put a link to it here". I can't do a side-by-side comparison before next week: perhaps others will comment first? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

How about if you make a PDF copy of the new article, then revert back to the old article (which was changed at 10:27, 16 May 2024), so that you can compare the two more easily? You can also view my draft of the new article at Draft:New Visualization instead of making a PDF copy. Egrabczewski (talk) 06:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I've had the article "Draft:New_Visualization" deleted. Egrabczewski (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

That word "plastic"

The translation of the Dutch word "beelding" has been confusing English speakers for decades. The English translation "plastic" is fairly meaningless. More meaningful alternatives have been suggested, such as: "imagery", "creative shaping", "image creation", "structure", "representation", "form-giving", "imagining", "design" and even "art". But do they work? When you see the word "plastic", does substituting these words make sense of the sentence?

We're told, by author P.Overy in his book "De Stijl" (p.42), that the word "beelding" is untranslatable. Art historian John Walsh says the word was unfamiliar and archaic even to the Dutch. I've tested translations of articles by Mondrian and van Doesburg by substituting these words for the word "plastic". Few of them work in all circumstances, especially when substituted in different sentences, or in different articles.

I've finally settled on the word "aesthetic" as a useful substitute for the word "plastic". My reasons are given in the "Terminology" section of the article. I don't speak Dutch but hopefully this will help English speakers make sense of Mondrian's original use of the word "beelding". Egrabczewski (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

It stands or fails on this statement, which is uncited: Mondrian himself equates the word "gestaltung" with "aesthetic idea", Google translate has multiple possible translations for gestaltung (shaping, layout, formation, arrangement, structuring, composition, forming) but not "aesthetic idea". As used in psychology, Gestalt is interpreted as "pattern" or "configuration". So your interpretation has to be questionable and would need an explicit source. Otherwise it reads as WP:OR. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I've moved reference [11] (the English edition of book) from earlier in the paragraph to the end. Since the book isn't available to read online (although I own a copy) then you can follow reference [10], which takes you to page 61 of the online German edition, where you'll find the paragraph: "Heute ist »Bauen: und »Dekoration« in der gewöhnlichen Anwendung ein Kompromiß zwischen »Bestimmung« und »ästhetischer Idee« oder »Gestaltung«e — einzig und allein infolge der Umstände. Denn aus den obengenannten Gründen ist das eine mit dem anderen zu vereinen." which can be put into Google Translate to get a rough idea. The actual text of the English edition states: "'Building' and 'decoration' as practiced today are compromises between 'function' on the one hand and the 'aesthetic idea' or 'plastic' on the other. This is due solelely to circumstances: under previously mentioned conditions the two can be united." Egrabczewski (talk) 11:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:FAIRUSE allows you to use the quote= option of {{cite book}} to quote the relevant sentence from the English edition. That would resolve the challenge. IMO, it would be valuable in any case. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

On further inspection, the word "gestaltung" is translated in several ways in the book. Another issue is that the German word "gestaltung" is not exactly equivalent to "beelding" or "beeldend". I am reverting to "De Stijl" by Paul Overy as the best reference and commentary on this topic so far. Egrabczewski (talk) 06:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

What happened to the Quotation Marks in this article?

The quotation marks in the main article here have about two weeks ago. The same text in my "Draft" article Draft:New Visualization (now deleted) shows the quotes, however the main article, with exactly the same text (copied and pasted) shows no quotes on the same Firefox browser. I've checked it with Safari, Opera, Microsoft Edge, and Chrome; the same problem occurs. Any ideas why? Egrabczewski (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

template:blockquote doesn't normally have quote marks. Why do you want them? See MOS:QUOTATIONS (which also says that quotes should not be italicised, as you have done). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC) revised 12:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

but specifically, you were using template:cquote (why? do you want scare quotes) and I see that Izno made a minor and not obviously related change to that template on 20 May, which may be a factor. In any case, it may no longer be relevant because I have changed the quotations in the article to use the normal {{blockquote}} and removed the italics, per MOS. I have also reformatted single sentence quotations to be simple inline quotes. I think that wp:Good Article status is achievable but not if it uses redundant decorations. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

{{cquote}} does not display big quotation marks in mainspace. They are inappropriate per WP:MOSQUOTE. Izno (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

"Terminology" still needs work

Mondrian's 1920 book, Néoplasticisme

@Egrabczewski:, can you look at the Terminology section again please? Various sources are quoted without any context or rationale

• Marty Bax cites Blavatsky: how is that relevant? So what?
• Various translations of nieuwe beelding without any introduction whatever.

𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I have deleted the sentence about Blavatsky, as it is (tangentially) related to plastic art. I cannot see how it is remotely relevant to this article. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay. I'll give some background to these references. Egrabczewski (talk) 21:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, in my view, this section only needs to explain the term "neoplasticism" as simply a direct translation from the French: Néoplasticisme which is the title that Mondrian chose for his 1920 book of that name. Surely that is enough? The material on nieuwe beelding belongs well down the body. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I have added an opening sentence to that effect. The translation into English given in the Archive.org file (here) appears to be a reprint from Mildred Friedman (red.) De Stijl: 1917-1931, Amsterdam: Meulenhoff/Landshoff, ISBN 90-2908-052-3. Do you have access to a copy? because we should credit the translator (who says that Néoplasticisme is a transposition of nieuwe beelding. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

For the book, try looking at

You need to understand that Mondrian was a theosophist, and Blavatsky was the founder of theosophy. Mondrian was influenced by the theosophist Schoenmaekers. So he read her books and she used the term "plastic" in English. In her case it was referring to a spiritual entity. Mondrian references the spiritual in his works. The same apples to Schoenmaekers. He too wrote books that have been translated from the Dutch as "plastic" (in English).

Mondrian was Dutch. All his ORIGINAL articles were written in Dutch in 1917 and published in De Stijl journal. That publication "Le Neo-Plasticisme" was published later in 1920, in French. In his earlier articles he used the words "Neuwe Beelding" to describe his theory of art. These are the original Dutch words he used. They are the beginning of the whole concept - not "Le Neo-Plasticisme", which was a translation of his concept of "Neuwe Beelding". The two are not exactly equivalent concepts because they're two different languages.

What you've deleted is in just about every historical account of Neo-plasticism, and the image of the book you've just posted is not the start of his writings about Neuwe Beelding. His earliest article starts here . Egrabczewski (talk) 21:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

@Egrabczewski: I have no objection to reinstating Blavatsky provided that we give her work a context (which you've almost done in that reply but, without a source, it violates WP:SYNTH). As originally written, it seemed a throw-away remark. I don't think we have explained adequately why it was that Mondrian chose the word Néo-plasticisme when first writing in French. Absolutely we must emphasise that Neuwe Beelding came first - and as the translator observed, the french term is a "transposition", not a translation. We need to show that it was a reliable source which concluded that Mondrian took the word plastic from Blavatsky, given that it has a long provenance in the vocabulary of academic art. Such as the Frampton citation for the influence of Schoenmaekers.

You say What you've deleted is in just about every historical account of Neo-plasticism Do you mean Blavatsky and Theosophism? If so, then surely it should be easy to find the RS evidence I believe is essential.

The image of the book cover illustrates Mondrian's decision to choose the French: Néo-plasticsme as a "transposition" of Neuwe Beelding. It was a conscious choice on his part not to have a literal translation. (Maybe because Art Nouveau was already in use? .) That was my rationale: I don't see how your point undermines it but rather indicates that we haven't illustrated Neuwe Beelding.

Just to be clear: I consider that you have done an excellent job on the article and that it is almost ready for a wp:GA nomination. That is why I have spent so much time on WP:MOS compliance changes. That is why I am being picky now because if we don't, the reviewer certainly will. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

If I could just point you to some of the relevant sources then perhaps you could finish off the work. You've raised several points. Hopefully I can address them all in one go. You can find all the relevant books on the Internet Archive here Art Books:

1) Blavatsky: the sources for the influences of Blavatsky, Schoenmaekers and other theosophists (Rudolph Steiner) include: Constructve Concepts - Rotzler (p.69-73); Complete Mondrian - Marty Bax (p.13); "Piet Mondrian: his life's work and evolution 1872 to 1944" by Tim Threlfall (1978) PhD Thesis (p.13); Piet Mondrian: life and work by Michael Seuphor (p58-63). Seuphor knew Mondrian personally.

2) Mondrian's library: "Piet Mondrian: his life's work and evolution 1872 to 1944" by Tim Threlfall (1978) PhD Thesis; Piet Mondrian: life and work by Michael Seuphor (p57).

3) Le Néo-Plasticisme: Historically speaking, Mondrian himself wrote the following articles. Note the translations:

1917: "DE NIEUWE BEELDING" (Dutch) [translated into English by Holtzman/James as "New Plastic"].

1920: "Le Néo-Plasticisme" (French) [translated into English by Holtzman/James as "Neo-Plasticism"].

1937: "Plastic Art and Pure Plastic Art (Figurative Art and Non-Figurative Art)" (English).

In Mondrian's last 1937 article that apparently he wrote himself, in English, before he died in 1944, nowhere does he use the term "Neo-plastic", "Neoplasticism" or "Neo-plasticism", which is curious.

It turns out that the two books I mentioned previously, "Neue Gestaltung" and "New Design" are simply translations of "Le Néo-Plasticisme" (French) by Hartogh/Burchartz (German) and Holtzman/James (English) respectively.

So, take your pick of the meaning and terminology. Egrabczewski (talk) 07:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

1. Blavatsky: if the article were a biography of Mondrian, then inclusion of Theosophy in general and Blavatsky in particular would certainly be an essential component. But it is not, so it would require a clearly sourced chain of events that found convincingly that he adopted the word "plastic" from her work rather than (is far more likely) from the long-standing academic usage of the term. He was, after all, a graduate of the Rijksakademie van beeldende kunsten. So I have to ask again: how is Blavatsky relevant to this article?
2. His library: I'm now struggling to justify inclusion of this detail. Its presence has the effect of making me question whether the Frampton citation is unequivocal: if it is [unequivocal], the library detail is redundant; if it is not, the library detail does not save it. Is there a good reason to retain it?
3. Etymology: I believe that it would be useful to show the evolution of their thinking, as revealed by the names they have chosen in different languages at different dates. I'll see if I can add a sentence to that effect.

𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

See my updated response, which was done after you posted your last comment. I'm trying to stick with established sources. The confustion around the term "plastic" and it's relatonship to "neo-plasticism" is going to be of interest, especially if there's confusion about the usage of the word and it's derivation. It's probably one of the biggest stumbling blocks to understanding the subject. However, we already have a comment about this confusion in the article, which may suffice. Authors have linked Theosophy to the word plastic and neo-plasticism, and I personally find it helpful to trace this possible link, but that's perhaps because I have an interest in Blavatsky. It's very unfortunate that nobody has translated any of Schoenmaeker's books into English. I've tried translating the Dutch pages with Google Translate but the result is incomprehensible. Egrabczewski (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Re your revision: in a way, it is actually more than just curious that Mondrian dropped the "plastic" term - this is WP:OR of course so we can't use it - it shows the evolution of their philosophy. Which of course is to be expected in the course of 20 years.

I agree with your conclusion that what we have is sufficient. A little more would have to become a lot more and an article in itself, even a whole PhD thesis . Best we quit while we are ahead.

Likewise, Schoenmaeker's philosophy per se is of orthogonal interest in the context of this article, we really don't need any more than Frampton's observations. The mark of a good article is concision but also that it tempts the reader into further exploration. The article as it stands scores highly against that metric, it is only this section that has needed to be tightened. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Bold reordering

@Egrabczewski: I have boldly reordered the section chronologically, which I think works better. The Holtzman and James book is very useful, giving a clear pathway from Neuwe Beelding to Néoplasticisme and Neue Gestaltung. I can backtrack if you really don't like it. (Some text to follow on Mondrian discarding the term plasticism later in his career.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems okay. The only bit I'm usure about is the sentence "Translating the essay into German for his Bauhaus book, Mondrian used the term neue Gestaltung." Looking at third page of "Neue Gestaltung", it says in German that the translation was done by Rudolf F. Hartogh, except for the article "New Design in Music and the Futurist Italian Brutists", which was translated by Max Burhartz. So the translation in 1925 wasn't done by Mondrian himself. I hope they showed him the translation, for his approval, before publishing the book! Egrabczewski (talk) 21:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah ok. The Holzman and James book says "In the German translation, it formed the title essay [etc.]", which I misinterpreted. I will correct asap. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Unused sources in the Bibliography

These sources are not cited, so I moved them down to "Further reading" for now.

• Bax, Marty (2001). Complete Mondrian. V+K Publishing. ISBN 0-85331-803-4.
• van Doesburg, Theo, ed. (October 1917). "Ter inleiding" [By way of introduction]. De Stijl (in Dutch). 1 (1).
• Huszàr, Vilmos (March 1918). van Doesburg, Theo (ed.). "Aesthetische beschouwingen III (bij bijlagen 9 en 10)" [Aesthetic considerations III (appendices 9 and 10)]. De Stijl. 1 (5): 54–57.

I suspect, however, that this may be "collateral damage" from the editing process so does anybody know why they were ever included? Were they ever cited? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Bax was used in the Theosophy section you removed. Van Doesburg was mentioned in the Dutch version of the article as one of the first uses of the term "Nieuwe Beelding" together with the article by Mondrian in the same issue of De Stijl (Volume 1, Number 1). Huszar used the term "Nieuwe Beelding" in the March 1918 edition of De Stijl. Egrabczewski (talk) 07:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Bax: As I've said above, I don't see the relevance of Theosophy to this article (as opposed to the Mondrian bio article). I don't have an objection in principle provided that we can show it has specific relevance to the art movement (as opposed to the religious beliefs of one of its founders).

Ter inleiding: yes, that needs to go back in since it is the first documented use of the term. Will do.

So Huszar came a bit late in the day but may be useful in documenting the chronology of the terminological evolution. Especially if he used capital N capital B, which van D did not (in Ter inleiding). I will look at that again. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Theosophy was important to both it's founders, particularly the principal founder, Mondriaan. It's useful to see what ChatGPT has to say, as it's relatively impartial (and sometimes wrong, but not in this case, since there's a lot of input data on this topic):

"How important was Theosophy to Neo-plasticism?

Theosophy played a significant role in the development of Neo-Plasticism, particularly through its influence on key figures like Piet Mondrian and, to a lesser extent, Theo van Doesburg. Neo-Plasticism, or De Stijl, was an art movement that sought to express a new, universal harmony and order through abstraction and simplicity, using geometric forms and primary colors.

Influence on Neo-Plasticism

Piet Mondrian:

Mondrian, a central figure in Neo-Plasticism, was deeply influenced by Theosophical ideas. He believed that art should transcend the individual and the material world to reveal a higher spiritual reality.

His quest for purity and universal truth in art was aligned with Theosophical principles, which emphasize the existence of a universal spiritual order.

Mondrian's abstract works, characterized by the use of straight lines, right angles, and primary colors, were an attempt to depict this spiritual reality.

Theo van Doesburg:

Although Van Doesburg was not as deeply involved in Theosophy as Mondrian, he was influenced by its ideas, particularly the concept of universal harmony.

Van Doesburg's theoretical writings and his role in articulating the principles of De Stijl were shaped by a belief in the possibility of a universal, spiritual art.

Key Theosophical Concepts Influencing Neo-Plasticism

Universal Harmony: Theosophy's idea of a universal spiritual order inspired Neo-Plasticists to seek a harmonious and balanced artistic expression that could resonate with these higher truths.

Abstraction: Theosophical teachings on transcending the material world influenced the movement's focus on abstract art as a means to express spiritual realities.

Simplicity and Purity: The emphasis on simplicity and purity in Neo-Plasticism can be linked to Theosophical ideals of stripping away the superfluous to reveal the essential, spiritual nature of reality.

Impact on Artistic Practice

Reduction to Essentials: Both Theosophy and Neo-Plasticism emphasized reducing forms to their essential components to convey deeper truths.

Use of Color and Form: The primary colors and geometric forms used by Neo-Plasticists were seen as universal elements that could convey spiritual harmony and order.

In summary, Theosophy was an important philosophical underpinning for Neo-Plasticism, particularly in shaping the movement's goals of expressing universal harmony and spiritual reality through abstract art. The influence was most pronounced in Piet Mondrian's work but also resonated with Theo van Doesburg and the broader aims of the De Stijl movement." It's always embarrasing when ChatGPT does a better job than I can at expressing English prose. But I no longer trust it's accuracy, as it can "hallucinate" when it's not got enough data to go on. Egrabczewski (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I suspect that it is highly likely that ChatGPT acquired its "knowledge" from this article! It is scarily similar. See Citogenesis.

I'm not proposing that we delete the Theosophy section. (Maybe you can reintroduce Bax there?) My position was that it was undue and distracting in the terminology section. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

In writing this article, I asked ChatGPT to tell me what Mondrian meant by "plastic art".

It gave a nice, one page, answer.

I asked it to tell me where it got it's information from.

It came back with a list of references: books, articles, etc.

One of these was: "Piet Mondrian's Theory of Art" by Harry Holtzman, published in The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism: This article examines Mondrian's aesthetic theory, including his concept of "plastic art."

I went to the Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism and searched for the article. I couldn't find it.

I asked ChatGPT to tell me what year it was published. It told me 1949.

I checked all four journals published in 1949. There was no article by that name.

I told ChatGPT I couldn't find the article and this is what it said:

--------------------

I apologize for the confusion. It seems there was an error in my response. Harry Holtzman did not write an article with that exact title in The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. My response included hypothetical examples to illustrate the types of academic sources that might discuss Piet Mondrian's theories of art.

If you're specifically interested in exploring Mondrian's theories of art, I recommend consulting various scholarly works and primary sources as previously mentioned. You may find valuable insights in books, academic journals, and Mondrian's own writings on art and aesthetics.

--------------------

So, basically, it made up the answer. So much for AI, which should mean "Apparent Intelligence". Egrabczewski (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Some statements that need citations

@Egrabczewski:, I've been doing a "devil's advocate' reread in advance of submitting for GA. The article is very well supported by citations but I found a couple of lines that read as original editorialising.

• In 'Terminology', I couldn't find a citation (in English!) for the introductory Since creating images is 'art', and creating structures is 'design', ... I don't see the phrase as significant enough to pursue, so I have deleted it – leaving just the bald statement Some authors have translated nieuwe beelding as new art, and others as new design, which is the essential point.
• In Neoplasticism#Idea versus matter, the assertions in the sentences beginning Van Doesburg, but especially Mondriaan, predicted ... are not cited. I can't see anything in van Doesburg's lecture Drie voordrachten/De stijl der toekomst (or, tbh, in the Google translate of it) which says that explicitly. The statements seem entirely credible and reasonable but still need citation support. Deleting it would be the last resort and a poor outcome. Do you have anything? (I will search Holzman & James to see if Mondrian wrote anything.)

𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the first point, I agree this edit reads better.

Regarding the second, this statement rings a bell. I'll try to find where I saw it. Egrabczewski (talk) 13:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Not ideal, but the concluding paragraph of van Doesburg'sKlassiek-barok-modern reads

De ontwikkeling der moderne kunst naar het abstracte en universeele, dus van het uiterlijke en individueele af, heeft het mogelijk gemaakt dat door gemeenschappelijke inspanning en uit gemeenschappelijk inzicht, een collectieve stijl te realiseeren is, die, boven persoon en natie uit, beeldend de hoogste en diepste en meest algemene schoonheidsverlangens van alle volkeren tot zeer bepaalde en reëele uitdrukking brengt.

which Google translates as

The development of modern art towards the abstract and universal, that is to say from the external and individual, has made it possible to realize, through joint effort and shared insight, a collective style that, above and beyond the person and nation, expresses the highest and brings into very specific and real expression the deepest and most general beauty desires of all peoples.

which supports the broad idea. It seems likely that we will find something more specific. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of trust in Google Translations of Dutch. If you compare human translations of Mondrian texts with Google's then you'll see what I mean. Regarding the paragraph in question "all arts in the future will become 'symbolised' and will only arise from ideas", this sounds like Van Doesburg. He talks about images in his book "Principles of Neo-Plastic Art", which relates to this section about "idea" and "subject matter". I've just seen the Google Translation of the same sentence in the Dutch version of the "Neoplasticism" article, which reads "all the arts in the future will so instilled so 'invent inventives' and only from the idea", which is garbage. The sentence we have in the English article also comes from Google Translate, but it's translated it differently. This happens when you give it different amounts of text or even when you capitalise text in different ways (!). So I wouldn't trust the translation in our article any longer. I've looked at Van Doesburg's book and found the following human translation which I think says something similar:

"The artist no longer gives form to his idea by means of indirect representation: symbols, snippets of nature, genre scenes and so on; instead he gives form to his idea purely directly by using artistic means." This comes from page 33 of "Principles of Neo-Plastic Art" by Theo van Doesburg (1925). Egrabczewski (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

There's a nice paragraph on page 24 of the same reference, which states "As soon as art deviates from what it essentially is, no longer only 'forming' but also 'depicting' i.e. producing an indirect instead of direct expression of aesthetic experience, it is no longer pure and forfeits its unique power.". Egrabczewski (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

One final observation is that the reference to the quotation "all arts in the future ..." in this section of the Dutch version of the article, comes from a book entitled "Drie voordrachten over de nieuwe beeldende kunst" (Three lectures on the New Visual Arts) by Van Doesburg (1919), which I can't find an English translation of, so we can't verify the quotation. Egrabczewski (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

but I think it reasonable to accept that our Dutch colleagues did so. That is certainly adequate for GA. (The FA tests are rather more severe!) I'll do another close reading later today and then nominate. Your name will be first, of course. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Internet archive

I believe you're from the UK, so I'm just wondering if you've found this weekend that you can no longer access the "Internet Archive" without using a VPN. This has suddenly started to happen with me, making references a bit awkward. I hope this isn't permanent. Egrabczewski (talk) 08:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it stalled for me yesterday but is ok today. They must have had to put in some sort of temporary block. The last time that happened, it was a Simulated Intelligence company grabbing the entire archive at full bore, to feed its Large Language Model. So it will happen again. and again. . --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

It's still happening for me today. BTW I've removed the Frampton reference after seeing a more direct reference to "nieuwe beelding" speculation in "Two Mondrian Sketchbooks" by Welsh and Joosten. I received a rare copy recently from the Netherlands (it's in Dutch and English). Contains Mondrian's notes from 1912-1914, whilst he was in his Cubist period but still gathering his thoughts on the new philosophy. Some interesting quotes that pre-date neo-plasticism but help explain some of his later thinking. Egrabczewski (talk) 10:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

It was ok this morning but stalling again now. America has woken up. Oh, wait, it is working again.

That's a great find, so I'll hold off on nomination until you have mined it. (re his cubist period, Wikimedia Commons has a bunch of Mondriaan (more) and Mondrian images: most are representational, which I found intriguing but of course it could be just what people have chosen to upload.)

Right now (between real life things!) I'm working through Drie voordrachten over de nieuwe beeldende kunst, looking at each use of the word toekomst (= 'future', a cognate of "to come"?). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Page 54 reads "Wanneer men mij nu vraagt, uit welke richting zich de toekomstige stijl zal ontwikkelen, dan antwoord ik : zonder twijfel uit de ideo-plastische." (If I am now asked in what direction the future style will develop, I answer: without a doubt from the ideo-plastic.) Egrabczewski (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Searching for "symbolism", on page 81 we have: "Het symbolisme, waarvan Thorn Prikker een voor- naam vertegenwoordiger is, was een tegenbeweging op het impressionisme De symbolisten leggen het accent op de expressie van de sensatie welke zij \an een geval of toestand ontvangen. .\ls zoodanig zouden wij het symbolisme een verfijnde decoratieve ideoplastiek kunnen noemen. (Hetzelfde geldt voor de pre-raphaëlietiescbe broederschap). Aangezien de schilderkunst in 't bizonder en de beeldende kunst in 't algemeen ten doel heeft te beelden en wel van de diepste realiteit uit en dat op de wijze der kunst, spreekt het vanzelf, dat het „verzinnebeelden", d. i. het uitdrukken van een idee bezijden de esthetische door voorstelling, door de schilder-kunstalszelfstandigen uitdrukkingsvorm der „kunstidce" onvruchtbaar en van geen diepgaanden invloed wezen zou. In het symbolisme beleefde dan ook de valsche idealiteit der romantiek haar hoogtepunt en einde."

(Symbolism, of which Thorn Prikker is a leading representative, was a countermovement to impressionism. The symbolists emphasize the expression of the sensation they receive from a case or situation. As such we could call symbolism a refined decorative ideoplasty. (The same applies to the Pre-Raphaelist Brotherhood). Since painting in particular and the visual arts in general aim to depict the deepest reality and do so in the manner of art, it goes without saying that it is "representation", i.e. the expression of a idea besides the aesthetic through representation, through painting as an independent expression of "art", would be sterile and of no profound influence. In symbolism the false ideality of romanticism reached its climax and end..). Egrabczewski (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

And I've just come back to say that I've found the "Wanneer men mij nu vraagt..." but you got there first . Do we have a sensible place for it to go?

I'm less sure that we should be getting side-tracked into his sideswipes against other movements, such as [in this case – he doesn't approve of the impressionists, the futurists or the cubists either] the symbolists. Does it really give an essential perspective on this movement? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The second, rather extended quote, was mainly there to give the last sentence some context. Sorry, I was trying to do this yesterday but the Internet Archive problem caused me to give up. After reading your idea it prompted me to try again. It's good to be inspired by someone else's efforts. I suspect Van Doesburg was inspired by Mondrian too. I was originally searching for a reference to support that sentence in the "Idea versus subject" section: "Van Doesburg, but especially Mondriaan, predicted that all arts in the future would become 'symbolised' and would only arise from ideas." A reference to the pages in this book could go here to justify the sentence. Egrabczewski (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I was afraid that this is what you meant. Unfortunately, WP:SYNTH or WP:OR say that we can't draw inferences: the source must be the one doing the conclusion. I think we have to rephrase it as "van Doesburg predicted" since we have an unequivocal quote from his book that says exactly that. Well I didn't find anything in Hotlzman & James, perhaps you will have better luck? Someone must have had a reason to write "and especially Mondrian". --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, I haven't found anything that Mondrian said directly to this effect. Egrabczewski (talk) 07:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

It is the essence of M's "triology" but unfortunately he didn't write a pithy concluding sentence or too for us to use. Neither (better still) did Holtzman & James. So unless there is something in Overy (which I don't have, do you?) then it is a detail that we don't need to pursue further. The message doesn't suffer if attributed only to van Doesburg. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

In Circle, Mondrian writes: "It is astonishing therefore, that one should reproach pure abstract art with not being 'real', and that one should envisage it as 'arising from particular ideas'." But still nothing about the future or symbols. I'll take another look a Overy (which, by the way, is in my Internet Archive List) [1]https://archive.org/details/@eddygra/lists/1/art Egrabczewski (talk) 08:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

In Hotlzman & James (footnote k on page 39) and the top of page 46, Mondrian seems to say the the symbol is not compatible with his new pure plastic art (or "abstract real paininting" as he likes to call it sometimes. Egrabczewski (talk) 09:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I found nothing in Overy BTW Egrabczewski (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm having a problem with the translation of the Dutch version of "Idea versus subject". I get a different translation of the Dutch word translated as "symbolised". It comes out as something entirely different in differing contexts. If you try translating the original Dutch "In zijn Grondbegrippen der nieuwe beeldende kunst stelt Van Doesburg vast dat in de kunstgeschiedenis twee soorten kunstwerken te onderscheiden zijn: kunstwerken die voortkomen uit de idee (ideo-plastische kunst) en kunstwerken die voortkomen uit de materie (physio-plastische kunst). Hij toont dit aan met een beeld van de Egyptische god Horus en een Diadumenos. Van Doesburg, maar vooral ook Mondriaan, voorspelden dat alle kunsten in de toekomst zouden ‘verzinnelijken’ en alleen nog maar uit de idee zouden voortkomen. Het gevolg hiervan was dat de voorstelling (het object, de natuur) van ondergeschikt belang was. Het eindstadium van dit proces was de abstracte kunst. De kunstenaars van De Stijl gingen echter nog een stap verder en probeerden hun werk langs rationele weg te zuiveren van alles wat nog enigszins aan de natuur herinnerde.", it comes out as "In his Basic Concepts of New Visual Art, Van Doesburg establishes that two types of works of art can be distinguished in art history: works of art that arise from the idea (ideo-plastic art) and works of art that arise from matter (physio-plastic art).[6 ] He demonstrates this with an image of the Egyptian god Horus and a Diadumenos. Van Doesburg, but especially Mondriaan, predicted that all arts in the future would become 'reified' and would only arise from ideas. The result of this was that the representation (the object, nature) was of secondary importance. The final stage of this process was abstract art. However, the artists of De Stijl went one step further and tried to rationally purify their work of everything that was still somewhat reminiscent of nature.". So now the Dutch word "verzinnelijken" means "reified"! If you translate only "verzinnelijken" (in double quotes) then it comes out as "to symbolise". If you type in 'verzinnelijken' (in single quotes) then it comes out as 'represent'. All of which is meaningless. Egrabczewski (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

And translate.bing.com suggests "Van Doesburg, but especially Mondrian, predicted that in the future all the arts would 'symbolize' and would only emerge from the idea."

1. "Reified" makes no sense whatsoever in this context.
2. "All arts in the future would become symbolised" makes little sense but maybe "All arts in the future would be symbolic"?
3. "Become represented"? No, another dead end.

I can only suggest asking for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Netherlands. Would you do that, please?

Trouble is, it may as much of a problem of English as it is if Dutch because of [my] ignorance of the specialist vocabulary of art studies. What is the opposite of "would be representational"? "Symbolic" and "symbolism" presuppose a physical thing that the symbol represents, like a cave painting of a deer symbolised the idea of a deer, not one specific deer. Classical music is a "thing" in itself, it doesn't represent it symbolise anything. The founding principle of abstract expressionism is that the same approach could be taken to image making: it is what it is, it is not "meant to be" something else, it is not "of" something. But afaik, that idea emerged quite a while after M&vD were on the scene. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The opposite of representational/figurative would normally be non-figurative/pure abstraction. Abstract and symbolic would be somewhere between these two extremes. The Mondrian quotes I saw recently suggest he felt that symbolism is still partly representinal, and therefore not sufficient his pure abstract vision or art. Abstraction at the time of Mondrian did not yet mean pure abstraction e.g impressionism, pointillism, cubism. Mondrian wanted to go all the way. He wanted Pure abstraction, with no reference to anything in the real/natural world. I don't think Van Doesburg was quite this extreme, but went along with Mondrian in the early days.

Regarding contacting the Dutch Wikipedia people, I've just posted a request for help in their Niewe Beelding article, asking for help. Egrabczewski (talk) 15:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

We are just looking for help with the translation, not advice on content. But I suspect that we might get a more 'tailored' response at nl:Overleg:Nieuwe Beelding. So let's try both approaches. Would you open a topic there, please? (and in any case, it would be a good opportunity to acknowledge that this article is now based on a translation of their article.) Apart from first admitting that you really should be writing in Dutch at nl.wikipedia but you can't, I'm virtually certain that it will be fine to pose the question in English.

Concurrently, I will ask for advice at our WikiProject NL. I will also ask for vocab help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Don't worry. All the Dutch people I worked with on EU projects could speak English perfectly! Egrabczewski (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Overleg%3ANieuwe_Beelding#English_Wikipedia_needs_help_for_the_article_on_Neo-Plasticism Egrabczewski (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not worried, my experience is also that their English is impeccable but nevertheless I consider it polite to recognise that you are on their 'land'. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

On reflection, although I've written a question for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Netherlands, I have decided to delay posting it until we hear back (or not) from nl:Overleg:Nieuwe Beelding. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Symbolism

An arbitrary break but makes editing easier. Somehow, I doubt that "symbolism" would work, it might be even outright wrong. As I read Mondrian and van Doesburg, they would denounce the Symbolist movement of the late C19 just as they did Impressionism and Cubism, as just forms of representationism. But let's see what suggestions we get. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

We got a reply: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overleg:Nieuwe_Beelding Egrabczewski (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I've changed the word "symbolism" to "deepening" for now. At least it appears in Hotlzman & James. Egrabczewski (talk) 18:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

It looks like there's no reference for that statement, so we'll probably need to review it again. Egrabczewski (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm also concerned by However, the artists of De Stijl went one step further and tried to rationally purify their work of everything that was still somewhat reminiscent of nature. Says who? Not van Doesburg on that page, at least, afaics. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you're probably right. We won't find an exact sentence like this in the book, or in Overy. Those sentences that are not obviously referenced could be deleted until we have a much deeper understanding of what Mondrian's philosophy was. But that will take quite some time and effort. Reading Threlfall's PhD thesis would be a good start. The more I read of Mondrian and Threlfall, the more I feel I need time to understand the subtleties of this art theory. Egrabczewski (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

What's becoming clear to me, and this is supported by Threlfall's thesis, is that the theory of neo-plasticism is entirely that of Mondrian, not van Doesburg. I haven't seen any evidence to support the theory that Mondrian and van Deosburg independently conceived the theory of neo-plasticism. From what I've read, they met and van Doesburg offered Mondrian the opportunity to have his theory published in van Doesburg's new journal, De Stijl. The fact that van Doesburg went on the create Elementarism, with all it's inconsitencies with neo-plasticism, whereas Mondrian continued to support and develop his original theory, supports this observation. Therelfall also states that the De Stijl movement depended on Mondrian's theory, at least to get started and until van Doesburg went out on a limb with Elementarism. So the influences on Mondrian are the most important in this article, which include Calvinism, theosophy and Mondrian's early experiences as a remarkably proficient painter in several styles, as he developed his new, spiritual theory of plastic arts. It seems fair to me that this article on neo-plasticism should predominantly reflect Mondrian's thinking more than van Doesburg's, including Mondrian's influences (including spirituality, Calvin, Blavatsky, Schoenmaekers, Krishnamurti etc.). It seems impossible to understand neo-plasticism without an appreciation of these influences. The Wikipedia article on De Stijl should emphasise van Doesburg's decisions as editor and thinker; neo-plasticism and De Stijl may have started our with the same goals but they developed differently. People who state that neo-plasticism is the same as De Stijl don't acknowledge their individual histories. As Threlfall states "In conclusion it can be said of Mondrian's writings that they evolved out of the nature of his artistic evolution: an evolution towards his own spiritual awareness; and that in the period from 1917 to 1925 Mondrian's philosophic contribution to De Stijl formed the theoretical foundation upon which De Stijl was built. Thus his role in that movement as a theoretician as well as its foremost painter was fundamentally seminal" - and Threlfall's thesis is by far the most detailed in terms of this research on Mondrian and his new plastic theory. Egrabczewski (talk) 06:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that Mondrian's writings are much more difficult to understand than van Deosburgs, which may be why some authors choose to emphasise van Doesburg above Mondrian. Certainly that is my own experience. Trying to use Google Translate to translate Mondrian leads to confusion, whereas translating van Doesburg is much more successful. (Even reading human translations of Mondrian is hardly better). The section we've been labouring about "Idea versus subject" comes entirely from van Doesburg's book "Neue Gestaltung", but it has little relevance to anything that Mondrian wrote about. If anything, Mondrian was more concerned with "material versus spiritual". It's what his new theory was all about: focussing on the move from the material to the spiritual as a means of artistic expression and personal salvation. Having read and listened to Krishnamurti over the past fifty years myself, I can understand some of what he must have been grappling with spiritually. Egrabczewski (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Fortunately, we have the Holtzman & James translation of Mondrian's written work, which is at least in real English (well, American). But that doesn't help us much because we can't draw our own conclusions from it. We may cite a PhD thesis but not extensively unless the author has become generally notable. In any case, we shouldn't rely on a single source (see Template: One source). We are nowhere near that being an issue at present, it is just a caution to be careful.

So maybe that leaves us with a section that can't justify its existence and we have to delete it? Will the article be significantly poorer without it? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Let's have a look at Neue Gestaltung and see what he van Doesburg was trying to say. If it's not that important or helpful then maybe it could be deleted. I'll read the English translation that I have in book form (there's a different digital version on my Internet Archive list here [2]https://archive.org/details/principles-of-neo-plastic-art-van-doesburg-1925/page/n9/mode/2up). Egrabczewski (talk) 09:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

P.S. I received another reply from the Dutch contributor here https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overleg:Nieuwe_Beelding#Idee_versus_materie. Egrabczewski (talk) 09:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that was a valuable reply. Well we are talking about a time concurrent with Dadaism and surrealism in art so we should expect nothing else; being coherent would mark the writer out as definitely a despicable old school academician. Even today, the obligatory "artist's statement" doesn't often make a lot of sense. Good visual artists are rarely wordsmiths and vice versa.

The reply in a way underlines the importance for us as editors to avoid WP:OR and WP:SYNTH: we need to leave it to the professionals to distil the essential messages. If we can't find anything to support a view, either it doesn't exist or it was never important in the first place. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with those Wikipedia policies. In the past I've written about what I know about in some detail, however more recently I've written articles based on other people's knowledge. This article on neoplasticism was outside my prior area of knowledge and so these policies are even more important to bear in mind. Originally I was just trying to translate the Dutch article, but with your input then it's become necessary to question the statements in that article more closely, and it's become a bit of a can of worms w.r.t. the existing tranlsations, the terminology and the lack of English translations of some articles and books. Egrabczewski (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I've updated the "Idea versus Matter" section to include only Van Doesburg's views as expressed in his book "Principles of Neo-plastic Art", as well as some minor changes throughout the article. I've checked and added specific references to De Stijl issues for two of Van Doesburgs images (I can access all "De Stijl" volumes). Egrabczewski (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I've inserted some references and deleted a few sentences that were questionable at the start of the Neoplastic theory section. Egrabczewski (talk) 10:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for doing a tag and run. I didn't realise it was so late, otherwise I'd have left it until today when I would have time to write an explanation here. But you seem to have figured it out anyway. The only one I was really concerned about is the Calvanism and Theosophy reference: yes, we know that they had this relgio-philosophical background but we needed an RS (not us) to say that it influenced their artistic expression. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I've just been reading "A Dialogue on Neoplasticism" by Mondrian, in Jaffé's book "De Stijl". It looked promising as an explanation of neo-plasticism, however it's proved immensely frustrating. I'm not sure if I've spent too many years writing computer programs, but I'm finding it impossible to make much sense of Mondrian's writing; less so than even Krishnamurti. Both are intriguing but ultimately the result of theosophical influences. Reading theosophical writings is like reading the book "Holy Blood, Holy Grail": eventually you give up following the rational arguments simply because of the sheer weight of countless, unsubstantiated, assuptions. In the case of Mondrian, you can add to this the underfined terms, like "plastic". His rhetorical conversation with "A" assumes that "A" understood the word "plastic". Personally, I would have spent the beginning of this dialogue asking Mondrian what exactly he meant by that concept. Egrabczewski (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Me too. How Threlfall managed to complete the thesis without going crazy is astonishing. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Indeed! :-) In fact, the more I read of his thesis, the more I realised he'd gone native! Egrabczewski (talk) 09:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, I think we (well, mostly you) have now done enough to meet the GA criteria. I will write the submission later today. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Pure Intuition versus Intellect

Evidence in support of the view that Mondrian thought intuition supersedes intellect in creating neo-plastic art. Once you read some theosophy and Rudolf Steiner's 1908 book "Graden van Hoogere Kennis" [The Stages of Higher Knowledge] then it will all make perfect sense! :

1. Blotkamp (1994) p. 203: "Throughout the 1920s, starting with Le Neo-Plasticisme, his writings continued to stress the crucial importance of intuition as creative instrument, and it's superiority to the intellect, and this notion received increasing emphasis, particularly in the articles dating from around 1930."

2. Mondrian (1923) "Intellect confuses intuition." [The Arts and the Beauty of our Tangible Surroundings]

3. Mondrian (1924) "When intuition is obscured by inferior intellect, error is inevitable. The domination of this intellect is fatal to art because it is based on the past and on superficial observation of nature" [Down with Traditional Harmony!]

4. Mondrian (1924) "Only through clarity of intuition does intuition cease to manifest itself in the manner of the past, as unregulated freedom. Conscious intuition requires no supervision by the inferior intellect: it is capable of regulating itself." [Down with Traditional Harmony!]

5. Mondrian (1925) "If, to the contrary, we start from technical, utilitarian demands, etc., we compromise every chance of success, for intellect then clouds intuition. That is why in today’s practice architectural construction is seen groping in all directions." [The Neo-Plastic Architecture of the Future]

6. Mondrian (1926) "Naturalistic beauty is now purified and returns to its origin: “pure intuition.” Created beauty is no longer vague and imitative, but conscious and creative. It is sometimes at variance with cerebral logic but always in accord with pure logic." [Pure Abstract Art]

7. Mondrian (1927) "Mature man will be able to live by intuition: all “thinking-and-feeling-inform” will dissolve into the unity of deepened emotion and intellect." [Jazz and Neo-Plastic]

8. Mondrian (1928) "Pure intuition becomes conscious through long culture and creates pure abstract art, which arises neither from intellect nor from vague intuitive feeling." [ Pure Abstract Art]

9. Mondrian (1930) "Through conscious intuition, art gradually discovered the universal plastic means by abstracting the natural appearance of form, without any premeditated intellectual calculation." [Realist and Superrealist Art]

10. Mondrian (1931) "In a more or less primitive period, as soon as intellect intervenes and veils intuition and man begins to calculate, to compare his work with nature — as soon as one tries to follow natural appearance — pure plastic expression is weakened. The art of the insane also shows how intellect can hamper this expression." [The New Art - The New Life]

11. Mondrian (1931) "Human progress, leading man toward a more conscious state, had inevitably first to bring about a degeneration of pure plastic expression and a perfecting of natural form. But in developing man’s intuition, this progress equally produced the evolution of purely plastic expression. Thus art finally attained conscious expression of the purely plastic." [The New Art - The New Life]

12. Mondrian (1935) "The artist is concerned neither with the elite nor with the multitude: he follows his intuition, which, through the progress of life, becomes more and more clear—so clear that it is usually confused with intellect. Only in this way can the artist gradually raise the multitude to a deeper and deeper understanding of life." [Reply to an Inquiry]

13. Mondrian (1936) "Intuition enlightens and so links up with pure thought. They together become an intelligence which is not simply of the brain, which does not calculate, but which feels and thinks. Which is creative both in art and in life. From this intelligence there must arise non-figurative art in which instinct no longer plays a dominating part. Those who do not understand this intelligence regard nonfigurative art as a purely intellectual product." [Plastic Art and Pure Plastic Art]

Q.E.D. Egrabczewski (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok, that was exactly what I believed in the first place. It was the preceding phrase "the objective over the subjective" that led to my thought process becoming inverted. So in fact (to my mind anyway), the phrase "the intuitive over the intellectual" is the key one and, if put first, would "channel" the reader to interpret the subsequent phrases correctly. Can we change the order? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Let me double check what Mondrian says. Egrabczewski (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

You're right. See the new topic "Subjective versus Objective". I've made the change. Egrabczewski (talk) 22:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Subjective versus Objective

Let's check what Mondrian says about these two concepts:

1. Mondrian (1936) "Both science and art are discovering and making us aware of the fact that time is a process of intensification, an evolution from the individual towards the universal, of the subjective towards the objective; towards the essence of things and of ourselves" [Plastic Art and Pure Plastic Art (Figurative Art and Non-Figurative Art)] HENCE: individual = subjective; universal = objective

2. Mondrian (1936) "It is illogical that the two principal tendencies in art, figurative and non-figurative (objective and subjective), should be so hostile. Since art is in essence universal, its expression cannot rest on a subjective view. Our human capacities do not allow of a perfectly objective view, but that does not imply that the plastic expression of art is based on subjective conception. Our subjectivity realizes but does not create the work." [Plastic Art and Pure Plastic Art (Figurative Art and Non-Figurative Art)] HENCE: figurative = objective[!]; non-figurative = subjective[!]; universal =/= subjective;

3. Mondrian (1938) "The essence of art expresses or evokes our emotion of beauty. It is universal and lies outside our subjective vision. The more that subjective vision is excluded, the purer the expression of art. All true art arises intuitively from the universal." [Art Without Subject Matter] HENCE: less subjective = purer art; universal = intuitive = true [pure] art

4. Mondrian (1941) "Although subjectivity can never be excluded completely, and is necessary to every human expression, pure abstract art aims at the utmost possible objectivity. For this reason it may be called objective rather than non-objective art. Actually it is nonsubjective art. Under this heading we may include all true abstract art as found in Constructivism, Suprematism, Neo-Plasticism, and even in naturalistic art if it were possible for us to divest ourselves of our subjective feelings and conventional conceptions. It is in this order of ideas that abstract art becomes “concrete”’ for us and is true Realism." [Abstract Art (Non-Subjective Art)] HENCE: most objective = pure abstract art; nonsubjective art = pure/true abstract art

5. Mondrian (1917) "Composition leaves the artist the greatest possible freedom to be subjective—to whatever extent this is necessary. The rhythm of the relationship of color and dimension (in determinate proportion and equilibrium) permits the absolute to appear within the relativity of time and space. Thus the new plastic is dualistic through its composition. Through its exact plastic expression of cosmic relationship it is a direct expression of the universal; through its rhythm, through its material reality, it is an expression of the subjective, of the individual" [The New Plastic in Painting] HENCE: composition = subjective; subjective = individual

6. Mondrian (1937) "It is evident that the latter (non-figurative art) can more easily and thoroughly free itself from the domination of the subjective than can the figurative tendency; particular forms and colours (figurative art) are more easily exploited than neutral forms. It is, however, necessary to point out that the definitions “‘figurative” and “non-figurative” are only approximate and relative." [Plastic Art and Pure Plastic Art (Figurative Art and Non-Figurative Art)] HENCE: non-figurative art = less subjective; figurative art = more subjective

Egrabczewski (talk) 22:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes his writing makes me think he used ChatGPT: the sentences individually make sense but the paragraphs don't. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Let's re-examine the quotations (see BOLD comments). Clearly in quote 2 then Mondrian has made a mistake and implied that figurative is objective; it should read "It is illogical that the two principal tendencies in art, non-figurative and figurative (objective and subjective), should be so hostile". In all the other quotations then he is consistent; namely: non-figurative art = objective art = nonsubjective art = universal = intuitive = pure/true abstract art = pure plastic art; figurative art = more subjective = individual = composition. Mondrian acknowledges that to compose "pure abstract art" involves subjective as well as intuitive judgement.

Egrabczewski (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

No, I don't agree that Mondrian made a mistake at #2, but rather than it reveals a failure of philosophy. Figurative art is representational: the academic art of his time demanded photographic realism in that representation. Even if the work represented a tale from Greek mythology, all the anatomy and architecture had to be "correct", albeit that that physiques were idealised. The entire process was predicated to be objective and unintuitive, reducing the practice from art to craft. By contrast, the post-war abstract expressionism is unambiguously subjective and intuitive. Neoplasticism, it seems to me, had an uneasy role in the middle: being entirely non-figurative meant that it had to be subjective and intuitive but compliance with the geometric rules required the opposite. I don't see a credible argument that "subjective" and "intuitive" are evidently different, quite the contrary in fact. The artists of the Salons de Refusées were people refuted the stultified Academy but rather asserted the primacy of artistic inspiration, of subjectivism, on intuition.

Anyway, we are drifting back into WP:NOTFORUM territory again, I'm afraid. So if you wish to discuss further (I am amenable), it needs to move to your talk page. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The rest of the quotations support a consistent viewpoint, so it's logical to believe he transposed these terms. There's not enough evidence to support your view of a failure of philosophy, and so it's fair to assume its a typo. Mondrian developed his thinking based on his theosophical beliefs, but his main purpose was painting. As Blotkamp (1994, p.215) states in relation to the use of double lines: "we may assume that the visual effect nevertheless took precedence over the theory". The rest of what you say about this period sounds like a generalization, which doesn't seem to apply to an individual thinker like Mondrian. Egrabczewski (talk) 11:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Failed verification

More practically, we have no source for

emphasised the universal over the nominal, the spiritual over the material, the abstract over the natural, the non-figurative over the figurative, the objective over the subjective, the intuitive over the intellectual; summarised by Mondrian as the pure plastic over the plastic

The citation given does not say that. That is a mandatory WP:GA failure. It reads as WP:SYNTH and I think it has to come out. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The sum total of Mondrian's articles in Holtzman and James don't support this paragraph? Which parts of this paragraph are not found in Mondrian's writings?: "universal over nominal", "spiritual over material", "abstract over natural", "non-figurative over figurative", "objective over subjective", "intuitive over intellectual", "pure plastic over plastic"?

Is the issue that all these are not contained on page 288 - in which case you simply delete the page reference. These statements are all from Mondrian - a single source; I'm not combing sources to reach erroneous conclusions. If we can't combine information from the same author then what's left?

Egrabczewski (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but "just delete the page number" won't do. We need to show where in Holtzman and James those assertions are made. It is absolutely unacceptable to credit a source for something it does not say.

WP:synth says nothing about "erroneous", it says that we must not make a leap of inference, valid it or otherwise, that is not supported by a reliable source.

The statements made in the block are not just by-the-by, we are presenting them as foundational so it is critical that they enjoy expert citation. (I consider these statements to be credible, but simply that it is contrary to policy for us to make them without adequate underpinning.) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Statements made in different places can be cited individually, one after the other. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

It is not possible to do a phrase search of Holtzman & James via Archive.org but the list produced just by searching for the word "over" is not too bad: unfortunately none match any these phrases. Of course it would be plagiarism if they had been copied without quotation marks but we must be able to cite identifiable passages that we can show that we have broadly paraphrased or summarised. Summarisation is ideal but it risks slipping over into synth: we must be able to show how we derived it.

If this all comes across as excessively picky or even obstructive, then the problem is with my ability to explain the policy. If you would like someone from the WP:Teahouse to review and advise, I will be entirely content. I really want us to work together to clear this up before the article is selected from the GA review queue. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

What I'm confused about is that a few weeks ago, when we were working on the article then you were reading these essays by Mondrian, and the Wikipedia article has been fairly stable for a while but you seem to have taken issue with this just now. When you were reading these articles, did you not see statements that support this paragraph? I don't want to be doing all the work ploughing through the books once again! Egrabczewski (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

What I'm embarrassed about is that I thought that, in anticipation of a GA nomination, I had checked all citations to confirm that they supported the associated content. There is a perennial problem on Wikipedia of an original statement having been properly supported by citation, but over time the statement has been "refined" to the extent that the citation no longer does so. When our current issue popped up regarding the correct order of words in the phrases, the obvious solution was to go back to the cited source and check what it says. Only it doesn't. Clearly I missed it.

I feel equally responsible for this having happened and thus will share in the work to resolve it. If you believe that it is somewhere in H&J, we can take half the book each. If you think it could be anywhere, I only have access to the ones on archive.org and will do those.

If we can't source it, we shall have to delete the statements but that would be a very poor outcome because it seems to me that they really do encapsulate Mondrian's thinking and give the reader in a solid foundation on which to understand what follows. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay - I was hoping you were going to help! I've read some articles and skimmed a few. But the ones that I think I based these statements on were in only a limited set, which are all in H&J:

1. The New Plastic in Painting (1917) - p.27 (47 pages)

2. Neo-Plasticism: The General Principle of Plastic Equivalence (1920) - p.132 (14 pages)

3. Plastic Art and Pure Plastic Art (1936) - p.288 (12 pages)

4. A Folder of Notes (ca.1938-44) - p.358 (35 pages)

There is a further Bauhaus book by Van Doesburg that I read, called "Principles of Neo-Plastic Art" (1925) from which parts of the Dutch article was based.

If we can't find the evidence in any of these then we can remove the offending pairs until we do.

If it's okay with you, I'll make a start on the first article.

BTW The search facility in archive.org is very useful. Egrabczewski (talk) 20:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Neoplasticism/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: JMF (talk · contribs) 14:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Rollinginhisgrave (talk · contribs) 11:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll take this one. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 11:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment for next reviewer

I'm sorry this page is so long. I was interested and hoped I could put more time in to get it to GA rather than quickfailing. There are some issues outstanding that have led me to fail the article.

1) Some key concepts are not explained in the article. Most prominently at this time is "the idea of the artist". This is referred to without explanation of what it is. In neoplasticism, it is a very specific thing.

2) Plastic is insufficiently defined using inline sources, especially with regards to "plastic means" (how this relates to artistic means).

3) RS say this is difficult to translate to English from Dutch. Most texts are in Dutch, and machine translation is used throughout, in places it should not.

4) Question over whether it even is an art theory espousing rationalism.

There are some more issues that are present; I did not make it past the art theory part. I hope these are addressed. The two nominators are highly intelligent contributors and I trust they will be able to by the time of the next review. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

General comments

I'll add comments as I go.

Interesting read. I am confused as you can see where I've left off. I'll continue once I get clarification, or if I don't understand with clarification, I'll pass the review onto an editor who does understand. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 13:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Thankyou for your clarifications, I'll work through them now. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

About my recent comments re; closing. Apologies, forgot you weren't around for parts of August Egrabczewski. I'll have another look a week into September, and hopefully you'll have had more of an opportunity to address the concerns. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Sources

Spot Check:

1) Following Schoenmaekers - who associated the physical with the horizontal, and the spiritual with the vertical - the neo-plastic painters applied horizontal and vertical lines with rectangular areas of color in order to radically simplify painting, purifying art of those elements that are not directly related to expressing "pure reality".: I could verify the first part, but in my 1988 copy I could not verify after the second dash. Could you confirm this is all on page 111?

2) He begins on the far right with the ancient Egyptians and Greeks, where nature and spirit were still in balance. Y

3) The reason for this was what they saw as the architect's role being too great: Couldn't find page 11 in linked source. Could a supporting quote be provided?

4) Some authors have translated nieuwe beelding as new art. Y

5) By "trialogue", Mondrian means his set of articles for De Stijl. Y

Prose and content

1. Why is the etymology in the first sentence?
2. Why is Mondrian spelt Mondriaan if it was proposed after he changed his name?
3. by applying the most elementary principles -> its most elementary clarity
4. Could we clarify what rational means refers to in this context?
5. the movement Neoplasticism or De Stijl?
6. De Nieuwe Beelding in de schilderkunst either translate or cut the name. Adds nothing to an English audience.
7. The terminology section should be fronted by a sentence from Overy explaining why labels are getting so much attention.

Elaboration: A lot of the article is dedicated to Terminology, an unusual amount. An explanation of why this is should be included in the body as a signpost, and for WP:UNDUE. The Overy quote I was referring to was "The terms beeldend and nieuwe beelding have caused more problems of interpretation than any others in the writing of Mondrian and other De Stijl contributors who adopted them."; I'm not sure if this claim specifically is contested. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 11:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The contentious bit is the word "plastic", which doesn't arise here. Interestingly, the section did at one time begin with that quote but it was successively shuffled down. I read too much into your remark. Yes, I will make that change tonight when I have time to integrate it properly. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I've had look at this again and really feel that Overy's remarks work best where they are now, near the end of the section. So I have responded in another (and, I think) better way: I have changed the section title from simply Terminology to Terminology : from 'nieuwe beelding' to 'neoplasticism' . This is en.wikipedia so of course the name in English is important but actually the primary focus of the section is how the original term nieuwe beelding came to be conceived. The struggles to translate it into other languages are interesting because it was so difficult to do so and because the name in English (and French) is so disconcerting to modern readers more familiar with polyethelene etc. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia style could be better followed by calling this Terminology development or the equivalent, I haven't seen colons used in subheadings before, and they're certainly not widespread. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Well there wasn't really any significant development of terminology, it only came about because of struggles to translate the original Dutch. Mondrian was repurposing the word "plastic" as used in classical art and architecture. The techniques are still plastic but no longer figurative. I will revert to the original simple "Terminology" and try to come up with another way to introduce the section – although it is not so long that it really needs one. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not that it's a very long section, it's just that it's unusually long for a terminology section. If there is a controversy, or difficulty in these sections, this will usually be signposted. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 10:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave: here are some responses to this section. The other sections require a bit more work

1. Because the original name in Dutch should be shown and because it is (now, an oversight) a redirect target. And also because the etymology comprises a significant element of the body, since the translation is certainly not literal.
2. It seemed a good idea to use the style he was using at the time. On further consideration, WP:CONSISTENT and WP:COMMONNAME apply, so I have replaced all instances of Mondriaan except where directly quoted.  Done
3. Agree.  Done.
4. ... by applying its most elementary principles through rational means. I'm not sure how we can improve on this phrase, as a succinct summary of the section Neoplasticism#Idea versus Matter. I think we have to leave this as a "teaser trailer".
5. As De Nieuwe Beelding in de schilderkunst is the title of the work, I think we really need to give it in full. I started to add an inline translation but immediately realised that to do so might be to take sides in the translation dispute that is the theme of that section. So I have added a footnote.  Done.
6. Can you elaborate? I can't see anything obvious in Concepts of modern art or De Stijl. Also, it is important to note that Overy himself is a party to the translation dispute and not neutral. He makes a catty remark about Holtzman's translation, even though H was a close friend of Mondrian and so was rather more likely to know. More obviously, the word "plastic" is a loaded term for modern readers so it seems to me that we need to address that issue first.

--𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

(Elaboration added above and response given there). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Prose and content:

1. Neoplasticism has a history. The theory in 1917 was called Nieuwe Beelding ["New Vision" or "New Plastic"] when Mondrian wrote his first paper in Dutch. It only became known as "Neo-Plasticism" in 1920 when Mondrian published another paper in French.

2. Before 1911 it was Mondriaan. After that date it was Mondrian. We'll need to look at the context again.

3. We can take a look.

4. I've looked at this phrase and found different answers, depending on whether your reading Mondrian or Van Doesburg. Mondrian felt strongly about intuition. Van Doesburg preferred a more rational approach, especially later after they parted ways.

5. Neoplastic theory was Mondrian's idea. Van Doesburg met Mondrian in 1916, although they'd been corresponding since 1915 and were clearly on the same wavelength. Both were familiar with Kandinsky's book "Concerning the Spiritual in Art" (1911) and Theosophy. Between 1912 to 1914, Mondrian was writing his theory in his Notebooks. De Stijl was an art journal published by Van Doesburg in 1917, expounding Mondrian's theory of "Nieuwe Beelding". By this time it had attracted several artists and architects, who wrote articles in De Stijl and starting a movement. After Mondrian and Van Doesburg parted thier ways, the journal continued for several years, departing further from Mondrian's orignal notion of Nieuwe Beelding. Neoplasticism and De Stijl are not historically speaking the same thing. One is the art theory on which the De Stijl movement was initially based, but they parted ways in 1924. Van Doesburg extended Neo-plasticism into what he called Elementarism.

So the movement is De Stijl? Could you change the article to reflect this? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

This article is about the art theory called Nieuwe Beelding, or Neo-plasticism, and it's influences. There's already an article on Wikipedia about the art movement called De Stijl. Egrabczewski (talk) 09:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Rather than introduce the section with "According to neoplastic theory", we might say "According to De Stijl philosophy, ...", which we can support by citing Doesburg's "Grundbefriffe der neuen gestaltenden kunst" [Principles of Neo-Plastic Art]. @Egrabczewski:, do you agree?

But, like Egrabczewski, I think that this is as far as I think we should go, lest we create a cfork of the De Stijl article (which was about much more than painting, even though it is the latter than remains recognised today. The architecture, textiles etc aspects were swept up by Bauhaus.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I think there's a misunderstanding here, no content changes are being proposed. I read the sentence "Mondrian, Van der Leck and Van Doesburg first set out the philosophical basis for the movement in a new journal, De Stijl in which they coined the term nieuwe beelding." and wasn't sure if "the movement" was referring to De Stijl or Neoplasticism. After it was clarified it was referring to De Stijl, I am asking for the ambiguous "the movement" to be substituted for De Stijl, which means the same thing. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 10:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

That sound's like a good suggestion. Egrabczewski (talk) 12:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

6. Translations can be added. But it helps to bear in mind the original Dutch meaning of the words, because of the issue around the word "plastic" and the phrase "new plastic". There's no simple translation in English. At least the Dutch is consistent.

7. Once again, the word "plastic" to a modern audience, especially those who are not art students - where "plastic" means something specific - needs to be covered. Personally, I found it the most frustrating area of this whole subject until it was explained. So did others, historically speaking. Egrabczewski (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

4. "... by applying its most elementary principles through rational means" I've always been concerned about the word "rational" here because one of the differences of opinion that developed between Mondrian and others in De Stijl was that neoplasticism was intuitive and inspired. Mondrian was clear about this from the very start. I believe so was Van Doesburg initially, but in developing Elementarism from Neoplasticism, after Mondrian and Van Doesburg had parted ways, Van Doesburg must have felt free to say what he later felt. I've seen the word "rational" in manifestos of Elementarism (or "Counter-Composition") Since this article is about Neoplasticism, which was primarily Mondrian's idea, then I feel that rationalism would be more appropriate in the article on De Stijl or the as yet to be written article on Elementarism. Egrabczewski (talk) 12:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a really important: really important thing to raise. The article's short description is "Art theory espousing rationalism." And I think I am going to have to fail this article at this point. I am sorry, I think the amount of input this is going to require from me is going to put me too far beyond what I'm comfortable with as a reviewer instead of just general contributor. I am looking at how big this review page is, and I cannot navigate it. I know I said I wouldn't close until September, and I'm sorry. I hope you understand that I feel that there is just too much work still needed to be done. I'll write up a note for the next reviewer. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Potentially stupid break

I am quite unclear on what is happening in the opening to Neoplastic Theory. Is this wikivoice? As in, is it describing the nature of art, and then describing what De Stijl artists extrapolate from that, hence the sparse sourcing? Or is this all fronted with an implied "according to neoplastic theory"? If it's the former, I think it's silly. If it's the latter, some clarification would be appreciated.

/End of break

• Is visual means referring to artistic means?
• 'visual means' "beeldend" (plastic). However, the artist determines to what extent he allows these 'plastic means' visual means = plastic. Therefore plastic means = visual means means.
• However, the artist determines why However?
• the idea of the artist: Clarify that this is not the concept of the artist.
• imbued -> working in the context of
• the non-figurative over the figurative, I don't think this adds anything not already provided by the abstract over the real
• the superiority of pure plastic over the plastic. absurd to link pure plastic and plastic to the same article.
• Could you clarify why you sometimes use neo-plastics and other times use neoplastics?
• vision (plastic) So from reading this article I understood: the artist is creating a representation of an idea. The end result is art. This idea doesn't have to be something out there in the world. To make it feel like it could exist for a viewer, the artist makes their work harmonious. They do this by using artistic means (painting techniques). These methods they use to achieve closeness are known as plastic. Now I am reading that an artists vision (i.e. how they intend to use artistic means to represent their idea) is the same thing as plastic. I know these concepts don't translate well. I'll leave this here before I continue under a misapprehension.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 13:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your work thus far, we appreciate it. It is very valuable to have someone take a longer view as we have been too close to it. We will work on resolving these queries. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Rolinginhisgrave

Thanks for these comments. It's helpful to get another pair of eyes on the article, as JMF and I have been focussing on small details for a while now, so now it's time to look at the article as a whole. I'm not going to be around for parts of August and so my replies will be delayed.

Some general comments first:

1. The previous version of this article on Neoplasticism was lacking compared to the equivalent Dutch Wikipedia (which is actually entitled "Niewe Beelding"). So that seemed like a good starting point, given that the most influential people in this area are Dutch, and most of the important literature in this area is in Dutch - with many books and articles having never been translated into English (e.g. Schoenmaekers' books, many articles by Van Doesburg, De Stijl articles, etc.) This gives Dutch readers a head start.

2. I downloaded and translated the Dutch article using Google Translate, so we started with a translation that needed considerable work - especially where we've assumed the text and original references to be correct. Some of these deficiencies have already been picked up by JMF, but your comments expose further work.

Let me see what I can address of the points you raise:

Sources:

1. The text is this part of the article is directly from the Dutch translation. Looking at the reference, pages, 111, 228 and 229 comment on lines and colour, but the translation of the Dutch into "in order to radically simplify painting, purifying art of those elements that are not directly related to expressing 'pure reality'" is not the best. I don't recognise the term "pure reality" as something found in the literature. ChatGPT gives a better rendition: "Following Schoenmaekers, who associated the physical with the horizontal and the spiritual with the vertical, the new visual artists exclusively used horizontal and vertical lines and rectangular color fields. The goal of this radical simplification of painting was to purify art of elements that, according to the new visual artists, were not directly related to painting." The latter part of this sentence probably cannot be found directly in the reference (I believe the reference is itself a translation from the Dutch) but the sentiment is more of less correct.

3. The ambigious reference to Van Doesburg (1918) is pointing to the wrong 1918 reference. It should be referencing the Van Doesburg (1918) article named "Notes on monumental art". A translation of that article states:

"The new visual consciousness involves: collaboration among all plastic arts to achieve a purer monumental style based on a balanced relationship. A monumental style entails: proportional division of labor among the different arts. Proportional division of labor means that each artist restricts themselves to their own field. This restriction implies: representation using the specific means of the craft. Representation using the specific means of the craft means: true freedom; it frees, for example, the architect from much that does not pertain to their means of representation, such as color, and for which they will have different insights from those of the painter from both a constructive and aesthetic perspective. These theories were already proclaimed by significant architects long ago, but in practice, with a few exceptions, it remained the same; the architect also took on the roles of painter and sculptor, which naturally led to the most arbitrary results, such as pictorial, sculptural, in one word, destructive architecture. Every art demands the whole person, including architecture, painting, and sculpture. Only when this is realized again, as in antiquity, can there be talk of development towards monumental architecture and style".

The Dutch author of the Wikipedia article states it politely, but clearly painters want architects to stick to architecture. Since the article spans pages 10 to 12, then page 11 is probably correct.

Potentially Stupid Break:

1. It sounds like a lecture, agreed. It's again from the original Dutch article. I've checked the source and these comments come from Van Doesburg's book "Grundbefriffe der neuen gestaltenden kunst" [Principles of Neo-Plastic Art]. It was published in 1925, after Mondrian and Van Doesburg had already split up because of differences in views (some say because Van Doesburg started using diagonal lines, but others say it was to do with the introduction of the "time" element to the space element of neoplasticism.) Van Doesburg was a clearer communicator than Mondrian, and this section at least is comprehensible to readers, unlike most of Mondrian's efforts in writing.

In relation to the other comments:

1. Yes, that would make sense. The artist has some means for creating a work. You can call these the "visual means", or (more confusingly) the "plastic means". Here, the meaning of the word "plastic" refers that which is tangible (visible, formable).

Can one be used for consistency? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 10:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The Dutch word is "beeldingsmiddelen", which translates to "visual aid" in Google Translate and "means of representation" or "representational means" in ChatGPT. In fact, ChatGPT states that beeldingsmiddelen refers to the various methods, techniques, or tools that artists use to represent or depict reality in their work.

"In the context of [neoplastic] art theory and the De Stijl movement, it describes the formal elements and techniques (such as line, color, and shape) that are employed to achieve a particular aesthetic or conceptual effect."

"beeldingsmiddelen" is translated to "plastic means" by Holzman and James. If you want the article to be understood by High School students then "visual means" or "representational means" is more intuitive. So what's the policy in Wikipedia for this kind of dilemma? Egrabczewski (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

P.S. in answer to your original question, "Is visual means referring to artistic means?"

I think the answer is "yes". Van Doesburg's book "Principles of Neo-Plastic Art" (which, you may recall, was published in 1925, and was based on Van Doesburg's original 1919 Dutch article) uses the term "kunstmittel", which translates to "artistic means". I should be able to confirm this in a week or so when I hope to receive a rare copy of the original 1919 article in Dutch, entitled "Grondbegrippen der nieuwe beeldende kunst" [Principles of the New Visual Art]. Egrabczewski (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

2. "visual means": Figurative artists use traditional "visual means" (such as drawn curved lines, mixed colours, perspective, and shading) to create paintings that look natural and realistic. But there is a hidden, universal meaning of the natural object being expressed, which the modern artist wants to capture, using the "universal visual means" (or "universal plastic means") of abstracting form and colour. In 1917, Mondrian called this universal visual means "Neuwe Beelding" ("new vision" or "new plastic").

Where does "plastic means" come into this? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 10:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

"plastic means" has approximately the same meaning as "visual means". It depends on whether you want the reader to understand what you're writing (in which case, you can usually use the word "visual") or whether you want to be precise (but confusing) by using the word "plastic". "Plastic" (in Mondrian's sense) is similar to "beelding", they're both concepts that don't translate into English as a single word. You have to develop the concepts of beelding or plastic with experience.

Another problem with "plastic" is that it means different things to different people. For example:

1. "plastikos" in Greek means to mould.

2. "plastic" in the modern world means a polymer.

3. "plastic" in Art means those arts that create visual forms.

4. "plastic" to Mondrian meant all that is tangible in space.

5. "plastic" to Van Doesburg meant the elementary expression of aesthetics.

6. "plastic" to Theosophists meant the spiritual essence of matter.

7. "plastic" to Schoenmaekers meant the adaptability of concepts and matter.

Can you see what we're up against in trying to make this understandable?

Egrabczewski (talk) 12:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to take some time to think about this. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Plastic is also what happens when your brain melts . Back on the talk page, I expressed deep admiration for the guy who managed to complete a PhD thesis on this topic. But if we follow the Wikpedia convention that we are writing for final year high-school students, we are forced into simplification and a certain amount of sleight of hand. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I think at a minimum, "The artists of De Stijl called these 'visual means' "beeldend" (plastic)." is misleading. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

It's also not what the original Dutch Wikipedia article states:

"De kunstenaars van De Stijl noemden dit beeldingsmiddelen. De kunstenaar bepaalt echter in welke mate hij deze beeldingsmiddelen laat overheersen of juist zo dicht mogelijk bij zijn onderwerp blijft."

Which ChatGPT translates to:

"The artists of De Stijl referred to these as means of representation. However, the artist determines to what extent these means of representation dominate or stay as close as possible to the subject."

where "means of representation" could be expressed as "representational means", "visual means" or "plastic means" - once we've chosen one of these for the Wikipedia article. I'm not familiar with all the editiorial goals of Wikipedia, so I'm going to have to rely on your advice, and apply this consistently once decided. Egrabczewski (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

3. "however": Even figurative (traditional) artists creating realistic works of art need to make a choice about how realistic they want to make it. So every work is to some extent realistic and abstract. The realistic part represents the natural "plastic" part. The abstract part is the "pure plastic" part, reflecting the artists "human spirit" - what they truly want to express about the work. This is the part that Mondrian latches onto when he decides to take abstraction to the limit and create works of art that look nothing like the original objects, but instead represent his human spirit (intuition and emotion) about the object.

What is it in the preceding sentence is this challenging, that justifies the use of "however"? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 10:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

4. The "idea" of the artist is the "human spirit" of the artist needing to express itself. You can reduce it to a thought or concept, but that's not the same as an intuition or feeling. Mondrian was more about intuition. Since this section is based on Van Doesburg's book then he must have felt the same at this time.

Idea is a bad word for all this, it doesn't entail what you describe here. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 10:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll have another look at the section. Egrabczewski (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The Dutch Wikipedia article (of which I made a copy at that time) states in Dutch:

"De kunstenaars van De Stijl noemden dit beeldingsmiddelen. De kunstenaar bepaalt echter in welke mate hij deze beeldingsmiddelen laat overheersen of juist zo dicht mogelijk bij zijn onderwerp blijft. Er is in de schilder- en beeldhouwkunst, en in mindere mate in de architectuur, de muziek en de literatuur, dus sprake van een dualiteit tussen de idee van de kunstenaar en de materie van de wereld om ons heen."

Google Translate translates it thus:

"The artists of De Stijl called these visual means. However, the artist determines to what extent he lets these visual means dominate or stays as close as possible to his subject. In painting and sculpture, and to a lesser extent in architecture, music and literature, there is a duality between the idea of ​​the artist and the matter of the world around us."

ChatGPT translates is as follows:

"The artists of De Stijl referred to these as "beeldingsmiddelen" (representational means). However, the artist decides to what extent these representational means dominate or stay as close as possible to the subject. Thus, in painting and sculpture, and to a lesser extent in architecture, music, and literature, there is a duality between the artist's idea and the material of the world around us."

Compare these with our own article:

"The artists of De Stijl called these 'visual means' "beeldend" (plastic). However, the artist determines to what extent he allows these 'plastic means' to dominate or whether he remains as close as possible to his subject. There is therefore a duality in painting and sculpture – and to a lesser extent in architecture, music and literature – between the idea of the artist and the matter of the world around us."

The point being that the original article uses the word "idee", which consistenly translates to "idea".

Looking at the source of this paragraph, Van Doesburg's book "Principles of Neo-Plastic Art", and looking at his own words, of which the above is of course a paraphrase for the sake of brevity, I find one paragraph of interest (translated from Dutch to German to English)

"Statt das Pittoresk-Zufällige und -Vielfältige der Natur vorherrschen zu lassen, sucht er durch beabsichtigte Ordnung der Figuren und Unterordnung der Details zum Ausdruck einer allgemeinen Idee zu kommen. Darum vernachlässigt er anscheinend die Gesetze der Natur gegenüber denen der künstlerischen Gestaltung. Er bedient sich der natürlichen Formen nur als Mittel, um sein künstlerisches Ziel zu erreichen."

The translation by a human author in an English edition of this book is as follows:

"Instead of allowing the picturesque fortuitousness and diversity of nature to predominate, he seeks to achieve expression of a universal idea by purposeful organization of the figures and subordination of the details. Thus he appears to neglect the laws of nature in favour of those of artistic creation. He uses natural forms only as a means of attaining his artistic aim."

I've considered the difference in meaning and usage of the word "idea" and "concept". At first I thought that maybe the word "idea" might represents a single thought, whereas "concept" represents a set of (unconscious) thoughts. But, personally speaking, if I heard someone say:

1. "the idea of an economy" and "the concept of an economy"

2. "the idea of God" and "the concept of God"

3. "the idea of evolution" and "the concept of evolution"

Then, in practice, I wouldn't see any reason to prefer one over the other.

So I see several grounds on which the word "idea" need not be replaced by "concept". Is there a specific reason for distinguishing between them. Perhaps I've misunderstood the issue. Egrabczewski (talk) 23:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you give me a quote for "The "idea" of the artist is the "human spirit" of the artist needing to express itself"? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Not as such, because the orignal Dutch paragraph is not a quotation but a paraphrasing of what Van Doesburg wrote in his 1925 book. You need to read the book to get the gist of his meaning.

It's worth knowing that the 1925 book, "Grundbegriffe der neuen gestaltenden Kunst", published in German, is based on Van Doesburg's Dutch 1919 article entitled "Grondbegrippen der nieuwe beeldende kunst", which was published in the journal "Tijdschrift voor Wijsbegeerte" (13:1 & 13:2, 1919). Van Doesburg states in the Dedication to the 1925 book that he "simplified and revised many passages".

One of the differences between Van Doesburg in 1919 and the 1925 book is that he stops using the word "spiritual" and prefers to use the word "human" instead. For example, in a 1919 article entitled "De nieuwe beweging in de schilderkunst" he writes:

"Every work of art acquires its essential value through its spiritual content"

But if you are looking for Van Doesburg using the phrase "human spirit" (as well as the words "spirit" and "spiritual") the the same article states:

"In the old art form, universal beauty could not be fully expressed, necessitating a new form that European painters have found in our time. It is self-evident, however, that the new principles in painting will not remain valid forever. When everything that can be said at the current level of painting as a visual art form has been said, a new aesthetic possibility will arise from it, expanding the scope of expression and elevating the human spirit once again. Our focus will not be on applied art but on monumental collaborative art, where various spiritual expressions (architecture, sculpture, painting, music, and literature) will harmoniously converge, each enhancing the other, to achieve unity. The spirit of the new artist will not be directed towards fragmented applications but towards monumental collaboration."

It's interesting to note that in 1919, Van Doesburg was still working with Mondrian, but by 1925 they had parted ways. By 1925, Van Doesburg had developed Neo-Plasticism into his own art theory, "Elementarism". Egrabczewski (talk) 09:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

If "the idea of the artist" is being referred to, it will need to be explained. I like "The "idea" of the artist is the "human spirit" of the artist needing to express itself", but whatever you can add with appropriate inline references that adequately explains it will be good. This is necessary. If this concept can't be explained in the article with references I won't be able to pass it as a GA.

You clearly know a lot about this topic, and your explanations have been helpful. They just need to go in the article, in a way approved of on Wikipedia. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I fail to appreciate what is the issue here. Egrabczewski (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

There's a key concept in Neoplasticism called 'the idea of the artist'. It has a meaning specific to neoplasticism. It needs to be explained, as there is no way the reader is supposed to know what 'idea of the artist' refers to.

Reading the article right now, it is not explained. If a key concept is unexplained, then this article can't be put through to GA.

I will be honest; this is not the only concept that is unexplained. The article was a long way from the GA criteria when I picked it up, but I am interested in this topic and was hoping we could clarify unclear concepts. We're still a long way away, and it would be best to spend a bit of time working on the article before resubmitting. As I said, this is interesting to me. I would be happy to be a "GA consultant" going forward, and help with making sure key concepts are explained, and explained clearly. I'll step away for a few days and see what the article looks like, and evaluate from there.

Egrabczewski, I hope this isn't disheartening. The amount of knowledge and quality you are providing to the project is extremely impressive. I believe in this page, and I believe in it because it's got strong editors like you behind it. I don't mean to exclude JMF, but I think they will grant me that the work you've put in here has been exceptional. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I endorse that fully, as indeed I did when I nominated it. I am in no doubt about who has done the overwhelming bulk of literature research. It has been quite an effort to avoid WP:OR and WP:SYNTH because the sources in English are thin and we can't use WP:primary texts. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

In relation to the phrase "the idea of the artist", which is one chosen by our Dutch Wikipedia author, I think the section entitled "De Stijl's philosophical origins" (starting at page 53) of Jaffé book "De Stijl: 1917-1931" expresses the sentiment of the importance of the spiritual in artistic creation (expressed previously by Kandinsky in his book "Concerning the Spiritual in Art" (1911), which was influential to Mondrian and Van Doesburg. Here is the link: [3]https://archive.org/details/de-stijl-1917-1931-jaffe-1956/page/n67/mode/2up?q=calvinist

Egrabczewski (talk) 11:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

See also the quote by Van Doesburg on page 86: "We abstract painters work more within our spirit than on canvas." Egrabczewski (talk) 12:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Italo Tomassoni in his book "Mondrian" (1968) states on page 15:

"The polarities of De Stijl are, then, the ideal platonic world of the universal principle, which is concerned with the spiritual; and the world of life, which is concerned with society. Since it is art which has to unite these two; and since the new reality will be the work of aesthetic activity, De Stijl affirms the pre-eminence of its spiritual discoveries. It establishes and sums up its Utopia in the proposal that art must be the representative of our daily actions: ‘Spirit overcomes nature, mechanical production supersedes animal power, philosophy supplants faith" Tomassoni (1968) Egrabczewski (talk) 14:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Van Doesburg writes in his 1916 essay "The Aesthetic Principle of Modern Plastic Art": "The cubist transforms the natural forms that serve as the starting point. By abstracting natural form and bringing forward the mathematical, he retains the purely plastic or artistic form. This is the spiritual. The spiritual is the inner. The inner is the aesthetic." Jaffé quotes this passage in his book "De Stijl, 1917-1931: visions of Utopia", p. 57. Egrabczewski (talk) 23:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you write something up in the article as a brief explanation of the idea of the artist using these sources? I think we've discussed on talk pages enough, it's time to be bold. We can then look at what's on the page and modify it if there's issues. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 08:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

5. "imbued": Mondrian was raised, as were many in the Netherlands at that time, as Calvinists. This was in his blood, although he rejected it later on and joined the Theosophists. But emotionally he was imbued with Calvinism, intellectually with Theosophy.

It's just not an appropriate word to use on Wikipedia in this context. A less emotive term capturing the same thing should be used instead. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 10:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

"The spiritual discipline of the members of ‘De Stijl’, their orthodox - or rectilinear - development may be considered as a feature of the ‘characteristics of the Dutch spirit’ rooted in the Calvinist tradition of the country and in the individual artists." (page 87 of Jaffé's "De Stijl: 1917-1931"). See also pages 85-87 here: [4]https://archive.org/details/de-stijl-1917-1931-jaffe-1956/page/n99/mode/2up?q=calvinist Egrabczewski (talk) 12:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the Wiktionary definition of "to imbue": In general, to act in a way which results in an object becoming completely permeated or impregnated by some quality. I don't think it unreasonable to summarise Jaffé's remark using the word "imbued". If you compare the bare austerity of a Calvinist chapel with a Roman Catholic church, you can see where the strict rectilinear style comes from. Obviously to that far would be WP:OR but I can't think of a better single word than 'imbued' to summarise Jaffé. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

My Concise Oxford Dictionary defines "imbue" as: 1. inspire or permeate (with feelings, opinions, or qualities). 2. Saturate. This is what I was trying to get across, but I can find other ways of saying something similar. Egrabczewski (talk) 23:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

How about: "The Dutch neo-plasticists, rooted in the Calvinist tradition, and influenced by Theosophy, ..." Egrabczewski (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure. The issue with imbue isn't that it isn't used correctly, it's that it's goes outside encyclopedic tone. This will need a brief explanation of Theosophy, even though it's explained later. We might need to move that up. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 08:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

6. Non-figurative over the figurative: Figurative in this context related to painters trying to paint representationally. Non-Figurative refers to painters adopting a purely abstract style of painting. It's not mentioned elsewhere in this paragraph, although you could think of figurative painters as lovers of the natural, and non-figurative painters as lovers of the spiritual.

"Non-Figurative refers to painters adopting a purely abstract style of painting" Yes. This is why I said I don't think this adds anything not already provided by the abstract over the real. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 10:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The way I understand it is that "abstract" and "real" are generic concepts, whereas "non-figurative" and "figurative" refers more specifically to painting. Egrabczewski (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Abstract art is not synonymous with non-figurative art. Abstract art is any kind of art that is less than photorealistic. e.g. Van Gogh, Cézanne, Picasso, Seurat, Kandinsky, Mondrian, Rothko, Pollock etc. whereas non-figurative art is art that bears no relation to any subject, e.g. later Kandinsky, later Mondrian, later Rothko, later Pollock. Therefore, non-figurative art is a very significant subset of abstract art. Egrabczewski (talk) 06:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I know it's not synonymous, I just don't know if it's adding anything, and in fact making it more confusing by adding more technical language. Especially if it's encapsulated. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 08:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

7. The whole point of Mondrian's theory, and his 1917 essay, was to differentiate between the "plastic", and "pure plastic" (which is synonymous with "new plastic"). The 1935 essay by Mondrian entitled "Plastic Art and Pure Plastic Art (Figurative Art and Non-Figurative Art)" is a clue to what these terms might mean. "Plastic Art" is "Figurative Art" and therefore representational art. "Pure Plastic Art" is "Non Figurative Art" and therefore abstract art in it's purest form, namely that art created by Mondrian after 1916.

8. Neo-plastics versus neoplastics: the two are equivalent. They should be standardised. The hyphen is normally used in the early stages of creating a new word. After some time and usage, the hyphen usually disappears. But we should be consistent in the same article. It's only a problem when dealing with history e.g. the 1920 brochure by Mondrian is entitled "Neo-Plasticismé" and hence "Neo-Plasticism" because it was a relatively new word at that time. Today, in 2024, we tend to see "Neoplasticism". Regarding terminology, I should point out that I have now seen one book about Mondrian [Susanne Deicher's "Piet Mondrian, 1872-1944 : structures in space" (1999)] that avoids the words "neo-plasticism", "neo-plastic" and "plastic" entirely. It makes me wonder whether some modern authors are railing against the word "plastic".

9. Vision (plastic): Hopefully some of my comments above will help explain what the word plastic means. To be sure, Mondrian actually told us what it means in 1942, two years before his death: "For 'plastic' - all that establishes itself as palpable appearance. ... Plastic is all that establishes itself in space. ... Plastic is understood not as 'modelling form' but as 'composing an image by means of lines, planes, or volumes.'" (from p.187 of Holtzman & James)

Egrabczewski (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

A further thought on the "potentially stupid break": yes, we should open it with "According to neoplastic theory" lest it be read as editorialising (aka wp:wikivoice). But I don't see why you should consider it silly. Yes, to a modern reader familiar with abstract art, this is high-school stuff and patently obvious. But at the time they wrote it (and, I might argue, for most of the 20th century and still for the general public) this was certainly not obvious stuff, far from it. The Impressionists, whose work was still figurative albeit somewhat abstracted, were drummed out of the Paris Salon (I'm sure you are familiar with the Salon des Refusés). Abstract art was greeted with "what is it supposed be a picture of?". So yes, it was indeed necessary that they set out these foundational principles and that we affirm them since they underpin the body of work. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.