Talk:Neoplasticism/GA1

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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: [1]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: [2]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.