Talk:Neoplasticism

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)

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)