Talk:Neoplasticism

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article contains a translation of Nieuwe Beelding from nl.wikipedia. (1222164058 et seq.)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

For the book, try looking at ^[1]

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 ^[2]. Egrabczewski (talk) 21:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]