Talk:De Stijl

De Stijl or Neoplasticism?

On en-wiki shouldn't this article be under the English Neoplasticism rather than the Dutch De Stijl. -- Solipsist 19:40, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Neoplasticism is a translation of the Dutch "nieuwe beelding," not De Stijl. It is probably best to consider Neoplasticism as the art "movement" and De Stijl as the loose association of contributors to the journal of that name. English art historians refer to "De Stijl" without translating it (as they do with the Bauhaus, the Fauves, etc.)

Plus, De Stijl is the more familiar term (from first year art history). Freshacconci 19:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I had always thought that De Stijl and Neo-Plasticism were not synonymous. Most of the De Stijl works that people are familiar with are going to be Mondrian's works, and he was a Neo-Plasticist, but De Stijl was broader than that. Whether the article is based at one, the other, or separated into two, I don't think it should be identified as "also called neoplasticism." superluser_tc 2008 January 17, 19:42 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct. Neo-plasticism links here, but I think this glosses over an important distinction. Even one of the references makes this distinction: look at the Tate glossary link.

Van Doesburg squeezed publicity out of the (more talented) Mondrian by officiously placing him under his umbrella of De Stijl. He aped Mondrian and put words in his mouth, until van Doesburg felt he (or Art itself, for which he would presume to speak) had "moved beyond" neo-plasticism. Mondrian disagreed and continued with his own mode of working until he himself made a change in New York, near his death. So, while De Stijl and Neoplasticism were closely associated for a time, De Stijl was a wider umbrella, and Neoplasticism had its own tenets and practice beyond the self-proclaimed "official sanction" of van Doesburg. Of course nothing so opinionated can go in the article :) but I do think it's unfair to simply have neo-plasticism redirect here.--96.242.191.15 (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

This chair is one of the hardest pieces of mood bord resurh i have ever done for dt a level —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.6.23.47 (talk) 22:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Lines? Terminology unclear

"In many of the works under this movement, the vertical and the horizontal lines slide past each other and do not intersect." Sorry, I don't follow this 'sliding' concept. Any chance of an illustrative pic? Or is it that there are lines in only two perpendicular directions as in the pic in the articles? RMoloney 02:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think perhaps what it's trying to express is that when one line is on the x-axis, another on the y axis, while the lines may be on the same x and y points, they are not on the same z-axis; they build on top of each other but do not form an intersection that exists in precisely the same space. I would not have possibly reached this understanding from the words the article currently uses to express it but only from looking at the examples cited. The fact that one of the key stylistic features of Mondrian is his use of intersecting perpendicular lines probably takes away from the statement as a general one. Unless there are examples of this "sliding" in 2d art it should be mentioned that this is characteristic of only De Stijl 3d art—namely, sculpture and architecture. Also, are there counterexamples? And is there any real significance to this aspect? Theshibboleth 07:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It is like the lines of this Rietveld lamp. MH 20:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to put illustrations on the talk page? I'm just asking, I really do not know what the "rules" are in this regard. --Charles 20:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

A way to remember how this works is that de stijl permits squares, but not crosses; i.e. intersections must be two (very stretched, line-like) squares in front of each other, not one cross-like shape in single z-space. Sunnan 23:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Article incomplete?

I agree some of the things in the article aren't detailed enough to understand, and there are other things that are missing from the article like information about their theories, and poetry etc. produced by the group and printed in their journal. I guess it's a bit bold to ask for it to be expanded when the Dutch WP article for this Dutch group is pretty short too, but it would be excellent for more info to be added anyway. Шизомби 03:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I am in the process of translating the Dutch article, for merging into the English one. It isn't really that impressive either, but it has more historical context. Radioflux 11:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I have basically taken the Dutch article, translated it into English, and merged relevant information from the original English entry back into the translation. Then I restructured it, and expanded on some points. We're far from complete yet, though. I don't know if something should be said about Stijl-influenced poetry, for example. Should we make a list of missing topics? Would WikiProject:Architecture be the right place to do so? --Radioflux 22:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps the best way to do this is to create a 'to do' list using {{todo}}. This creates a subpage which we can then bring into the wikiproject page as shown here. This has 2 advantages -

1. People who come to this page who are unaware of the project can still see what needs to be done.
2. The wikiproject can be automatically updated.

I've just gone through the process of translating and converting a German FA to an English FA - not easy. See IG Farben Building. There was quite a bit of confusion about referencing. In the end the original German references were relegated to a Further Reading section. I had to find a bunch of english references for the article which one reviewer asked to be put into Footnotes and another into References; I ended up with them in references. I've got some books that mention de stijl so I'll have a look at improving the architecture side of the movement.--Mcginnly | Natter 16:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Quotation

The artists…provided an exact explanation of the nature of this plan to bridge the traditional gap between art and technology.

The environment and man's everyday life are lacking, by virture of their imperfect state and their barren necessity. And so art becomes a means of escape. In art man seeks the beauty, the harmony, which is lacking or which he pursues vainly in his life and his environment.
Tomorrow, however, the realization of a plastic equilibrium within the concrete reality of our environment will take the place of works of art. Then there will be no need for paintings and sculptures, because we will be living in a realization of art. Art is only a substitute for when there is not enough beauty in life; it will vanish as life regains its equilibrium.

—Mondrian

Art and technology are indivisible, and the pure plastic invention will always conform to practical exigencies, because they are both questions of balance. Our times demand this equilibrium and it can never be achieves in only one way.

—Mondrian

Trivia

Trivia section mentions: "Australian band Silverchair's 5th album Young Modern has artwork based on De Stijl". Would we really want to list every instance of artwork based on De Stijl? --Radioflux 23:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we should axe the entire section - the limited value it adds to the article far outweighs the damage done by inviting cruft. --Mcginnly | Natter 10:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation guides

The beginning of the article shows two contradicting Dutch pronunciation guides: [də ˈstɛɪl] and [dɛ ˈstiːl]. Which is correct? Hangfromthefloor (talk) 05:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Theo van Doesburg Counter-CompositionV (1924).jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Theo van Doesburg Counter-CompositionV (1924).jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Influencing music

The article only sources one person as being influenced by de stijl to create music but in a blatant homage to the movement the White Stripes wrote an entire album of the same name that works on the same principals of de stijl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.239.148.85 (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

History Section Misleading?

I'm just a student and don't have much specific knowledge about the Netherlands during WWI or De Stijl, however the Early History section seems to take the perspective that the artists of De Stijl couldn't leave the netherlands as a result of the war, as if no Dutch citizens could leave, where all history seems to indicate very much the opposite and that the Dutch were not only able to move around Europe freely, but that it was a great benefit for the warring countries as Dutch citizens made excellent spies.

While the whole section is uncited it seems that this source (cited for reference), would be an excellent background and seems to lineup with the information in the section. Although there are differences. The book translates De Nieuwe Beelding in de schilderkunst as ("Neo-Plasticism in the art of painting") which is different than the current translation ("Neo-Plasticism in Painting"). Not to mention some capitalization differences.

modwizcode (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on De Stijl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060327132656/http://www.artandculture.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/ACLive.woa/wa/movement?id=112 to http://www.artandculture.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/ACLive.woa/wa/movement?id=112
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051128042504/http://caad.arch.ethz.ch:80/teaching/nds/ws97/script/text/doesburg.html to http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/teaching/nds/ws97/script/text/doesburg.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. AtticTapestry (talk) 15:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

De Stijl, International Style and Cubist architecture

@Leuk2:, I was wondering, what is your source for this paragraph? I've removed it from the article pending the source:

In Modern architecture of the 1920s are three notable movements: Cubist, Expressionist and Constructivist architecture. The magazine "De Stijl" (first issue October 1917) was influential on Cubist architecture of the International Style. The other Dutch magazine "Wendingen" (first issue January 1918) was influential on international Expressionist architecture.

Coldcreation (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

1920, poster by Theo van Doesburg, "Cubists" and "Neocubists"

@Coldcreation:

In the article Modern architecture (29 October 2017) are three notable movements mentioned:

1. Cubist architecture

2. Expressionist architecture

3. Constructivist architecture

Sources for Cubist architecture: The notion International Style is introduced in the US in 1932. Professionals in Europe don't like this notion. CUBIST ARCHITECTURE gives more information about the architectural form and is more familiar to the other two notions. / Theo van Doesburg used the term CUBISTS on his poster in 1920 (see ill.) and in articles. - Leuk2 (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@Leuk2: I'm not asking what these types of architecture are. I'm asking you what your source is for your claim that: "The magazine "De Stijl" (first issue October 1917) was influential on Cubist architecture of the International Style. The other Dutch magazine "Wendingen" (first issue January 1918) was influential on international Expressionist architecture." Please provide the author, title, publisher, date and page number(s) so I can verify these assertions. Thanks in advance. Coldcreation (talk) 03:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Marinus Jan Granpré Molière, "Cubist" architecture (video 00:35)

@Coldcreation:

Three dominant styles: In 1932 Henry-Russell Hitchcock and Philip Johnson introduced the notion International Style. In 2017 we are talking about 3 groups of dominant styles: Cubist, Expressionist and Constructivist architecture. In Europe the term International Style is a little bit outdated in 2017. You can see the development of the 3 groups of styles in the article Modern architecture (29 October 2017).

2- and 3-dimensional artistic world: On your website one can find a very interesting collection of paintings of the 2-dimensional artistic world, and architecture is minimal present. Perhaps this is the source of the conflict and discussion between Cubist architecture and International Style?

Green color: You uploaded the cover of the magazine "De Stijl" 1917-1. De colors of "De Stijl" are red, blue and yellow (incl. black and white). In the country of "De Stijl", the Netherlands, the green color of your illustration is not acceptable. Perhaps the green color can be eliminated?

Deletion of correct informations: In the article "De Stijl" you deleted correct informations! 9.11.2017 you deleted the Manifesto of "De Stijl", Dadaism and later Housing Kiefhoek in Rotterdam, Weissenhof Stuttgart etc. Do you have the right to delete correct informations? This is not the best condition for a useful discussion.

Leuk2 (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Leuk2: Ping me when you've answered the question I asked you twice now. Coldcreation (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Leuk2:: I see you've edited your comments but you still have not provided a source (please see WP:RS if you are uncertain about what that means). Cubist architecture being synonymous with International Style, to the point of piping the former term over the article title of the latter, is highly questionable and will definitely need some good sourcing. I am failing to see the relevance of your initial edit: that Europeans don't care for the term "International"? If so, what's the point in the context of this article? It's arbitrary and confusing. That De Stijl influenced cubist architecture? That's nice, if true, and I suppose it can be mentioned if well-sourced, but it's hardly a crucial point to make, particularly the way it's introduced in the paragraph you added. Wikipedia should reflect as much as possible global views on topics but not if that means erasing common mainstream views, particularly without any sources. We can't just take your word on it. If the term International Style is outdated, this isn't the article to address it. freshacconci (✉) 14:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• As to your comment on the "green" cover: the publication in question was black ink on white or cream paper with no colour. What you are seeing is the fading of an archival work. It's not "green" it's just appearing to have a green tint due to time. You can see the uncropped image here which shows the fading around the edges of the cover. It's entirely possible that the first issue was printed on green paper as well, as it was a journal/magazine and they would have used what was available or economical or they were not concerned with purity of colours in something like a journal. In any case, this is the image that is available to us in the public domain and unless a different free example is available, changing it based on assumptions of what the original intent what is misguided. freshacconci (✉) 15:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

This is another copy, taken from a Christie's auction site. Clearly not the same copy: the one Wikipedia uses appears to be cropped from a version with a stamp in the upper right corner. This version has no stamp but has the same sort of fading. Either it's green paper fading to beige on the edges, or the paper is greening with age (which may have to do with the kind of paper used, the material that went into the paper -- paper from China was popular at the time and Chinese paper often used bamboo and leaf material rather than cotton more common in the west). This may explain the greening (or, as I said, they simply used green paper at the time. It was the first issue; who knows what restrictions they had). freshacconci (✉) 15:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on De Stijl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140429120104/http://www.guggenheim.org/new-york/collections/collection-online/movements/195212/description to http://www.guggenheim.org/new-york/collections/collection-online/movements/195212/description/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Theo van Doesburg: The pioneers of "Cubist architecture" (1922)

See quotations in Talk:Modern architecture. Leuk2 (talk) 11:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Leuk2 (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

What your source is for your claim that: "The magazine "De Stijl" (first issue October 1917) was influential on "Cubist architecture" of the International Style.@Leuk2: Ping me when you've answered the question I've asked you three times now. The link you posted at Talk:Modern architecture doesn't cut it. Coldcreation (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Gino Severini at the opening of his solo exhibition at the Marlborough Gallery, London, 1913 (detail).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• De Stijl, Vol. 1, no. 1, Delft, October 1917 (detail).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

De Stijl the movement vs. De Stijl the journal

There is potential confusion in Wikipedia between the art movement called "De Stijl" (pronounced "de steel") and the journal publication called "De Stijl", which was the mouthpiece of that movement (actually, of Theo van Doesburg). I propose we make the distinction here in Wikipedia by having two articles, one called "De Stijl (art movement)" and another called "De Stijl (publication)". Sometimes you might need to distinguish between the two.

Paul Overy made this distinction in his book "De Stijl" (1991) by printing the journal name in italics, De Stijl, and the movement name, De Stijl, in normal text. Jaffé does the same in all his books.

Sometimes people are confused between "De Stijl (art movement)" and "Neoplasticism" - the latter being the art theory of Piet Mondrian, adopted by "De Stijl (art movement)" after Monrian met van Doesburg. Later, as you might know, van Doesburg extended Neoplasticism to Elementarism, while still publishing his ideas in the "De Stijl (publication)" - by which time Mondrian has left "De Stijl (art movement)". This confusion has not been clarified in the articles themselves, however the distinction between the De Stijl movement and De Stijl journal still remains. Egrabczewski (talk) 08:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

In principle we could split the article and have one for the movement and one for the journal, with disambiguating names. But it seems to me that the sum of the parts would be much less than the whole, that each article would have to include large chunks of the other to make any sense. I think we can resolve the problem by using roman exclusively for the movement and italic exclusively for the journal. Although the MOS (at MOS:WAW and MOS:FOREIGNITALIC) says to use italic for "words as words" and for non-English words, this is definitely a case for WP:IAR and we can use apostrophes in the one isolated case where the name of the movement is italicised at present. So how about this for a new lead section:

De Stijl (/də ˈstaɪl/, Dutch: [də ˈstɛil]; [The Style]), incorporating the ideas of neoplasticism, was a Dutch art movement founded in 1917 in Leiden, consisting of artists and architects. De Stijl is also the name of a journal – published by the Dutch painter, designer, writer, and critic Theo van Doesburg – that propagated the group's theories. The term 'De Stijl' is also used to refer to a body of work from 1917 to 1931 created in the Netherlands. Proponents of 'De Stijl' advocated pure abstraction and universality by a reduction to the essentials of form and colour. They simplified visual compositions to vertical and horizontal, using only black, white and primary colors.

Along with van Doesburg, the group's principal members were the painters Piet Mondrian, Vilmos Huszár, Bart van der Leck, the architects Gerrit Rietveld, Robert van 't Hoff, the sculptor and painter Georges Vantongerloo, the architect J. J. P. Oud and the poet and writer Antony Kok. The artistic philosophy that formed a basis for the group's work is known as neoplasticism – the new plastic art (or Nieuwe Beelding in Dutch).

Does that work? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The quotation marks look strange to anyone who knows about the subject. Maybe just normal type (or bold?) for the movement, and italics for the journal?

I agree that there would be a lot of repetition if we split the movement and journal into two articles (just as there is already with the Neoplasticism and De Stijl articles.

The summary is good, but the last sentence of the first paragraph "They simplified ..." is only true between 1917 and around 1923, after which Van Doesburg added diagonal lines to give a more dynamic quality, at which point Mondrian left the group (there are other reasons given by other authors, like the introduction of a fourth dimension - i.e. time - which Mondrian objected to). That's when Neoplasticism and De Stijl parted company around 1923. Mondrian continued to create works according to Neoplastic principles whereas Van Doesburg and others started creating "Counter-Compositional" works using diagonals. Van Doesburg named this extension of neoplasticism "Elementarism". Which is why De Stijl(1917-1923) adopted Neoplasticism as its art theory, but De Stijl(1924-1931) evolved to Elementarism.

When De Stijl started then the 1918 manifesto included painters, architects, a sculptor and a poet.

Egrabczewski (talk) 14:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The single quotes would only be used once (in the phrase The term 'De Stijl' is also used ...), unqualified thereafter (i.e., in normal roman type without quotes).

Yes, the second para needs another sentence or two to say that the movement fragmented in 1923. Your Mondrian continued to create works according to Neoplastic principles whereas Van Doesburg and others started creating "Counter-Compositional" works using diagonals. Van Doesburg named this extension of neoplasticism "Elementarism". Which is why De Stijl(1917-1923) adopted Neoplasticism as its art theory, but De Stijl(1924-1931) evolved to Elementarism. is great if it summarises a section in the body [which is code for "it is so good that it needs body text written to justify its existence"!) And we also need to say in the lead that, despite the split, the journal continued and the former associates continued to write for it. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

How about:

De Stijl (/də ˈstaɪl/, Dutch: [də ˈstɛil]; [The Style]), was a Dutch art movement founded in 1917 in Leiden, consisting of painters, architects, sculptors and poets. De Stijl is also the name of a journal – published by the Dutch painter, designer, writer, and critic Theo van Doesburg – that propagated the group's theories. From the beginning, De Stijl advocated Piet Mondrian's theory of Neoplasticism however, after 1923 De Stijl extened this theory to Elementarism. Proponents of 'De Stijl' advocated pure abstraction and universality by a reduction to the essentials of form and colour. They simplified visual compositions to vertical and horizontal, using only black, white, gray and primary colors, later adding diagonal lines and assymetry to their works. Egrabczewski (talk) 15:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

If that was intended to prove we should split the article, it did a good job . At after 1923 De Stijl exten[d]ed this theory, I got confused as to which De Stijl you meant. Was it this:

De Stijl (/də ˈstaɪl/, Dutch: [də ˈstɛil]; [The Style]), was a Dutch art movement founded in 1917 in Leiden, consisting of painters, architects, sculptors and poets. De Stijl is also the name of a journal – published by the Dutch painter, designer, writer, and critic Theo van Doesburg – that propagated the group's theories. From the beginning, the movement advocated Piet Mondrian's theory of Neoplasticism but, after 1923, the journal extended this theory to include Elementarism. Proponents of the movement advocated pure abstraction and universality by a reduction to the essentials of form and colour. They simplified visual compositions to vertical and horizontal, using only black, white, gray and primary colors; some later adding diagonal lines and asymmetry to their works.

I can't see anyone raising serious objections but as it such a short article, it does seem a bit contrived to have a split, so we should try a bit harder first by using descriptions (noun phrases) as alternatives to the name, my latest draft. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The latest draft seems okay. The word "some" in the final sentence makes me wonder. I'd have to check if anyone who still subscribed to Mondrian's strict philosophy still remained in the De Stijl movement by this time (1924). De Stijl, changed course, thanks to Van Doesburg, and this was reflected in the journal De Stijl, which started to spout Elementarist views - since the journal was under the sole editorship of Van Doesburg. By the time Mondrian left then anyone who disagreed with Van Doesburg's view had already left, which meant that those who remained all subscribed to his Elementarist philosophy. Egrabczewski (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I've just been reading the following article, which presents the relationship between De Stijl and Neo-plasticism differently:

[1]http://www.visual-arts-cork.com/history-of-art/elementarism.htm ]

I may need to go back to the sources and see if they agree with this viewpoint. It's an interesting way of looking at the relationship, but I have some doubts about it. Egrabczewski (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

"We run an open editorial policy, and welcome contributions from all viewpoints, although we reserve the right to edit submissions." and it doesn't say who wrote it. So it would fail WP:RS because of WP:UGC. But if it prompts you to think laterally and look at the sources differently, not a lot wrong with that. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

That sort of evolution is quite common. Usually it is politics or religion. We can only try explain the evolution in brief terms and, because Mondrian was a noted departure, it should be easier that in other cases. It is not exactly the Great Schism or the Reformation. For me, though, it is not useful [as in, it discourages readers from reading on] to get bogged down in organisational details. So, although we have to acknowledge the fragmentation, we should not give it too much "air time" – provided that we make it clear that the movement and the journal in 1931 were rather different to their 1917 counterparts. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm working on reading some of van Doesburgs earliest essays (1912) to see what he was saying before he contacted Mondrian in November 1915. According to Baljeu (1974), Van Doesburg saw something that he liked about the spiritual and architectural quality of Mondrian's work. They met in January 1916, by which time Van Doesburg had suggested founding a new magazine - an idea he'd discussed with Antony Kok the previous year (Kok claims to have thought-up the name "De Stijl") - but Mondrian thought it was premature. Egrabczewski (talk) 10:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. And may provide enough unique content to tip over into having two articles? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

There'd have to be enough to say about the journal to justify a split into two articles. Regarding the website on Elementarism, it states: "In keeping with the De Stijl philosophy of reducing art to its fundamentals of form, colour and line, Neo-Plasticism insisted on the application of strict rules of composition. For instance, only vertical or horizontal lines should be used; only primary colours of oil paint should be applied; and so on.", I'm curious about this claim since the rest of the website sounds very well informed, and so this part worries me - since I may have misunderstood something. It suggests that Theo van Doesburg had a pre-existing concept of De Stijl (the movement) well-defined in his mind, and that it was about "reducing art to its fundamentals of form, colour and line". Only afer encountering Mondrian did he apply some of Mondrian's Neoplastic principles to this pre-existing notion of De Stijl i.e. "only vertical or horizontal lines should be used; only primary colours of oil paint should be applied; and so on". This interpretation of events doesn't seem to tally with what I've understood from various sources, and so I'm going back and re-reading those sources, as well as looking at some of Van Doesburg's 1912 to 1917 publications - mainly in articles in a publication called Eenheid - to see if this might be true. I know that Van Doesburg was unhappy with the current state of affairs in art, and had some ideas of his own about where it should go (in 1915) and became interested in Mondrian precisely because they were both on the same wavelength at that time, but had Van Doesburg already developed his ideas to the point of having a very specific philosophy? I'd like to see some evidence of that. Egrabczewski (talk) 08:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that seems credible. I'll be interested to see what you find. Unfortunately, wp:NOR stops us from using it here directly but it can certainly form what we write. Unless of course you find an RS that has been down the same track. A PhD thesis in Dutch, perhaps? (You can hardly be the first to explore this "marriage" and "divorce", surely?) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

The book "De Stijl: The Formative Years" (1982), edited by Blotkamp, uses the italics convention for the journal De Stijl and normal type for "the group of artists connected with the periodical". But the main reason for mentioning this book is because the chapter on Van Doesburg goes into detail about his early life before he published the periodical. It looks at his work and relationships with artists, architects, Kok the poet and Schoenmaekers the philosopher, and how they influenced his thinking. It looks like, under the influence of these people, Van Doesburg did indeed develop his ideas about art, especially following the influences of Kandinsky, Eric Wichman, Janus de Winter, Vilmos Huszar and Mondrian. Van Doesburg's earlier thoughts in 1912 were about art as an expression of the artists inner feelings and experiences rather than depicting beauty, and his use of line, shape and colour in his 1915 abstract works - all influenced his own style and thinking. Blotkamps book even talks about "the development of van Doesburg's theory and his art", which later became the basis on which he founded the journal De Stijl and selected the group of De Stijl artists. So the "Elementarism" website appears to be correct in it's view that De Stijl (the group) was based on the ideas of the artists that formed the group. Each artist, selected by Van Doesburg (namely: Oud, Huszar, Van der Leck, Mondrian) had their own unique style, tied to a common philosophy around abstraction (the degree to which it was figurative varied), form and shape (simple) and colour (primary, not tinted). Mondrian's personal philosophy (the New Vision, traditionally translated as Neoplasticism) - which included horizontal and vertical lines only, primary colours (red, blue, yellow) and static, balanced composition - were interesting to the group but were not taken as gospel. Van Doesburg was in agreement with Mondrian at first but later, as he developed artistically, he began to express his desire for dynamism and motion in art, which he had supressed during the formative years of De Stij and expressing them only later (after 1924). Egrabczewski (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

References