Talk:Piet Mondrian

Name change, when?

This article contradicts itself. First it is said that Mondriaan changed his name te Mondrian between 1905 and 1907, then it is stated that he changed when he went to Paris in 1912. At least one of those statements must be false.

Dranghek (talk) 19:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Grammer

The antepenultimate paragraph ("Much of his art is ... much fun to contemplate their development in art history.") seems to be two or more sentences mashed together. Can anybody suggest a correction? Heron

---

Just for the record: I've queried on Talk:Art whether this picture really is by Mondrian (it is extremely atypical at best). If anybody knows it is and can tell us what it's called and what year it is from, that would be very useful. --Camembert

Well, no reply here, and no reply on Talk:Art (not even after I solicted one from User:Dmn who uploaded the image). I have serious doubts that it is by Mondrian, as I say, so I have removed it from the article pending some evidence that it is. The image in question is Image:Colourthree.jpg. --Camembert

Namechange - Mondriaan or Mondrian?

Why is this page called Piet Mondrian when his correct name is Piet Mondriaan? This Mondrian page should be a redirect to Mondriaan and that page should hold the article instead of a redirect to Mondrian.
I tried to correct this but some ignoramus reversed it. 213.51.209.230 18:59, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For your information: In Dutch it is still Piet Mondriaan, but he changed his name in Paris to Mondrian, maybe to be better understandable for Frenchman. Ellywa 23:59, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But was that an official namechange? In Spain I call myself 'Quique del Prado' because that is the Spanish equivalent of my name. But if there were a Wikipedia article on me (hey, there's a thought .... :) ) I'd want it to be titled 'Dirk van der Made' (even on the Spanish Wikipedia). That he signed his work with 'Mondrian' is irrelevant - that would then have been his artist's name. What counts is if he officially changed his name. Anyone know this? DirkvdM 07:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

No reactions here, but I also asked at the Dutch Wikipedia and there someone said it was probably not an official namechange. So I'll move the page to 'Piet Mondriaan'. DirkvdM 06:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Correction, I've requested the move because it's already been moved, so it takes an administrator to do this. DirkvdM 06:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...If he is better known to English speakers as Mondrian, the page should be at Mondrian. It doesn't matter if he legally chaged his name or not, he changed the common usage of his name (at least outside Holland). sjorford #£@%&$?! 08:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

He is known to English speakers as Mondrian, as the references make clear. That is where the article should be. --Henrygb 21:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

As the Dutch article says: "known in later life as Piet Mondrian". It should stay here. Septentrionalis 23:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I forgot, I came across this 'common usage' thing before. I also notice that the article on Rembrandt van Rijn is titled simply 'Rembrandt'. I rather disagree with this policy. The common names should certainly redirect to the relevant articles, but an encyclopedia should educate, not perpetuate mistakes. Just as 'Beethoven' redirects to Ludwig van Beethoven. But if it's a policy I'll just leave it. But then why isn't the Beethoven article titled just 'Beethoven'? Or, worse, 'von Beethoven'? And the article on Christopher Columbus not just 'Columbus'? Then again, if you adhere to the strict name, it should have been 'Cristóbal Colón', with the accents and all, and I wouldn't be in favour of that. Come to think of it, he was Italian, so it should be 'Cristoforo Colombo'. Rats, I outsmarted myself (and that smarts). :) Ah well, I'll just leave it. There's no easy answer here (as if there ever is anywhere...). DirkvdM 09:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Rembrandt (and Christopher Columbus) are not mistakes; they are both established, if odd, English usage. H.W. Fowler would have called them sturdy indefensibles. Don't educate; please leave them alone. Septentrionalis 04:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't educate?? You've got to be joking. What other purpose does an encyclopedia have? Now this is the wrong talk page for this, but doesn't it make more sense to redirect the commonly known name 'Rembrandt' to the proper (full) name 'Rembrandt van Rijn'? DirkvdM 08:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The point of an encyclopedia is to provide easy access to information. I think it would be safe to say that the overwhelming majority of people looking for this article would be searching for Mondrian, not Mondriaan. Cross-referencing from the Dutch spelling just adds a needless extra step. I don't think it's any less educational to place the article in the most obvious place, as long as his original name is mentioned in the text. There's a difference between education and pedantry.

The Rembrandt page is now under Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn. This was a necessity, given the other uses of the word. uriah923^(talk) 20:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Peer review

I believe this article is really excellent. In fact, I was surprised how good it was when I first came to wikipedia, given the lackluster state of articles concerning some other artists. Perhaps it is time to submit it to peer review. Though there are some obvious holes, such as a lack of info on his personal life, I think this is quite close to becoming featured article worthy. Any thoughts, objections?--Sophitus 03:52, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

About his personal life: there isn't really much to tell about it. Mondrian was one of the few artists where his life was really all about his art. He didn't have children and had little interest in marriage. There are a few things which might be interesting, but those focus on his relationships with other artists (such as Theo van Doesburg), where it is, again, about his art.

Husky 10:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

some questions I d like to find answers to

I would like to know: does anyone know if Gestalt Psychology, popular after WWII, had any influence? His Compositions seem to reverberate, like the figure foreground principle(the two faces with the vase). Also, I want to say he had a contribution, while in Europe to the Bauhaus-who came first Lissistzky or Mondrian- /Mondrian was the father of modern advertising./

Looking at his compositions makes my eyes reverberate. Does this happen to any one else

And most importantly to me, Is this pure abstraction,or rather, is he a formalist/aesthetician, or what? jazzman

Another question, An art teacher once told me that past of his theory featured a kind of "back to basics" approach to graphic comunication, and that it was from there that the black grid surged, since it consist of horizontal and vertical lines are the most basic and constitute a large part of all written and graphic language, there's only maybe 1 slight reference to this when it is said "I believe it is possible that, through horizontal and vertical lines constructed with awareness, but not with calculation, led by high intuition, and brought to harmony and rhythm, these basic forms of beauty, supplemented if necessary by other direct lines or curves, can become a work of art, as strong as it is true." which still has no citation, and is supposedly a quoting mondrian.

is there any kind of evidence of this

Copyright question

Concerns were raised that this article infringes on [1]; however, it is my conclusion that the uploader of the content to Wikipedia is the same person as the author of that article, and so we have been granted a licensed under the GFDL for that content. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Kelly, your conclusion is correct. I am the author of both. If I was supposed to make that clear, I apologize. Craigz 05:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Why does this article list the correct pronunciation of his name as "Moan-dree-on"? Neither the Oxford English Dictionary nor the American Heritage Dictionary lists this as a possible pronunciation. I've changed it to "mon-dree-on" to better approximate the correct pronunciation according to those references. (I used "moan-dree-on" in conversation the other night, because I read it in this article, and was scorned!)

POV?

There are a lot of portions of this article that strike me as sounding pretty worshipful, more like an insert at an art museum, than a non POV description of the artist. "He was a great artist" for example is an opinion not shared by all. It almost sounds more like an artistic hagiography. Andacar 16:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrong link

The link named The Red Mill in the list of Mondrian's works leads to a wrong article. --Trilby*foxglove 21:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Non-fair-use image

I apologise for removing the Newman photo of Mondrian. I did so mainly because the license used is the one for works of art in copyright, and the photograph is the work of art, not Mondrian: fair-use of copyright art allows only for its use on articles where the work of art is discussed, not its subject. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:'View from the Dunes with Beach and Piers, Domburg', oil and pencil on cardboard painting by Mondrian, 1909, Museum of Modern Art, (New York City).jpg

Image:'View from the Dunes with Beach and Piers, Domburg', oil and pencil on cardboard painting by Mondrian, 1909, Museum of Modern Art, (New York City).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Colour dispute

There is a dispute about how his paintings should be described in terms of colour. This currently seems to be being argued on the basis of personal observation. I have found a reference, namely the Tate gallery which says:

Returned to Holland in 1914 and step by step evolved a more simplified abstract style which he called Neo-Plasticism, restricted to the three primary colours and to a grid of black vertical and horizontal lines on a white ground

If you want to change this definition, then first please find a source to do so and discuss on this talk page. Tyrenius (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the Tate is certainly correct. But you know how artists are: [2]. Always exceptions. Seriously, though, rapid research finds that after 1920 he abandoned gray for the abstraction as described above. JNW (talk) 00:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

As an uninvolved observer (called in by a report on WP:AIV due to incivility by an anon editor) I'd say that the article itself appears a bit self-contradictory. The second paragraph of Piet Mondrian#Paris 1919–1938 definitely mentions grey more than once. Perhaps the problem is that whereas that section is talking about early work, the reference from the Tate speaks of later evolution, and the article lead-in doesn't make it clear that there was evolution. I'd also note that at least one instance of PM's later work such as Broadway Boogie-Woogie uses a colour described by the New York Museum of Modern Art as "light gray". Tonywalton ^Talk 00:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

As you say, always the exception. As most of Mondrian's notable paintings are his black line, primary color paintings I think the opening covers that basic point well. Thank you again however for your input. Modernist (talk) 01:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

He undoubtedly does use grey in some works. We can see that with our own eyes! However, sources seem to talk about his use of black lines and three primaries, as in the Tate example. It's not up to us to rewrite the accepted evaluation. The Tate also has a definition[3] of Neo-Plasticism, which allows for grey:

Neo-Plasticism was in fact an ideal art in which the basic elements of painting - colour, line form - were used only in their purest, most fundamental state: only primary colours and non-colours, only squares and rectangles, only straight and horizontal or vertical lines.

"Non-colours" because grey isn't a colour. It seems appropriate, if grey is going to be mentioned, that it is not done so in a way that makes it equivalent to the primaries. Tyrenius (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mondrian broadway boogie-woogie.gif

Image:Mondrian broadway boogie-woogie.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Unexplained list needs explanation

Under the section "Death" of the article, this sentence:

"On 3 February 1944, a memorial, attended by nearly 200, was held for Mondrian, at the Universal Chapel on Lexington Ave and 52nd St. in New York City."

is immediately followed by three indented lists of names in each of three categories (two lists of artists, one of notable others). No explanation is given for what these lists of names is doing there.

1. I suspect that this is supposed to be a list of those notables in the art world in attendance at the memorial. If this is to be included in the article, this needs to be explained.

2. Is there really any reason to include a list of notables in the art world who attended the memorial? I don't think so.Daqu (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

See the top of the page: discussion now closed. Geometry guy 17:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

References In pop culture

I removed the following trivia. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• In the opening sequence of Green Acres, there is a Mondrian visible in the New York Apartment.
  • This is unreferenced, and tells us nothing about Mondrian. It would be trivia even if it were on the Green Acres article.
• Molly Ringwald's character (Andie) in Pretty in Pink prominently displays three Mondrian paintings in her room.
  • This is unreferenced, and would be trivia even on the Pretty in Pink article.
• The Silverchair album Young Modern (released 2007) features Mondrian influenced cover art, and even the title of the album's first single, "Straight Lines", is a reference to Mondrian. On their recent Australian tour, their stage set up featured a Mondrian style backdrop which lit up in different colours throughout the show.
  • This is unreferenced, possibly original research.
• The 1970s television show The Partridge Family utilized Mondrian-inspired design, particularly in the painting of the show's signature school bus.
  • This is unreferenced; even if it were referenced it would tell us nothing about Mondrian.
• The mathcore band, Botch, released a song titled "Mondrian Was a Liar", likely referring to Mondrian's subtlely deceptive works.
  • This is speculation ("likely…"), probably original research ("subtlely deceptive…"?); even if it were referenced it would tell us nothing about Mondrian.
• In an early episode of the British TV show Hustle, a gang of conmen scam a crooked gallery owner out of £500,000 using a forged Mondrian purporting to demonstrate that Mondrian, rather than Pablo Picasso, invented cubism.
  • This is information about a Hustle episode, not about Mondrian.
• French designer Yves Saint-Laurent, uses Mondrian's art motif in his fall/winter 65/66 collection.
  • This is unreferenced. What is "Mondrian's art motif"? Even if it were referenced it would tell us nothing about Mondrian.
• Tom Wolfe's journalistic endeavor The Kandy-Kolored Tangerine-Flake Streamline Baby,references Mondrian dozens of times in reference to the similar colors used on 1960's hot-rods.
  • A reporter mentioned Mondrian in a report? This tells us nothing about Mondrian, except that the journalist had heard of him.
• Hopscotch (Julio Cortázar novel) has several references to Mondrian. In Chapter 9 Etienne and Oliveira debate the artistic significance of Mondrian compared of that with Paul Klee. In Chapter 19 La Maga declares that Oliveira is "a Mondrian" while she herself is "a Vieira da Silva", referring to Maria Helena Vieira da Silva.
  • A book mentions Mondrian? This tells us nothing about Mondrian, except that the author knew something about him.
• In the opening title sequence for the TV show 'Green Acres' (1965 - 1971) a Mondrian-like painting can be seen in the scenes that take place at the New York City apartment.
  • This is original research.

Bad fakes or really bad photography

Please compare the images on http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/mondrian/ with Composition 10 and Composition with Yellow, Blue, and Red currently included in the Piet Mondrian article. Composition 10 is also shown at the Abstract art "gallery" - and actually looks like drawn with MS paint. - Armin B. Wagner (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• The one on the given link looks more real, and is similar to others google image search, so possible switch of current pictures, or deleting

Added Picture

Added picture of Piet Mondrian's "Composition II in Red, Blue, and Yellow," because it is one of his better known works to the general public--Crab182

Lists

These lists appeared at the end of the "death" section, with no context or explanation, so I have removed them:

• Émigré artists: Alexander Archipenko, Herbert Bayer, Marc Chagall, Marcel Duchamp, Max Ernst, Jean Hélion, Frederick Kiesler, Moise Kisling, Fernand Léger, Matta, László Moholy-Nagy, Amédée Ozenfant, Hans Richter, and Kurt Seiligman.
• American artists: Peter Blume, Ilya Bolotowsky, Alexander Calder, Burgoyne Diller, Suzy Frelinghuysen, Fritz Glarner, Carl Holty, Harry Holtzman, Ibram Lassaw, George L.K. Morris, Robert Motherwell, Charles Shaw, Charmion Von Wiegand, and Abraham Walkowitz.
• Notable others: Valentine Dudendsing, Katherine Dreier, Albert Gallatin, Sigfried Giedion, Clement Greenberg, Peggy Guggenheim, Sam Kootz, Julien Lévy, Henry McBride, Karl Nierendorf, Dwight MacDonald, Hilla Rebay, Meyer Schapiro, James Johnson Sweeny, and James Thrall Soby.

Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Date for Composition with Yellow, Blue and Red is incorrect

The work illustrated is not the 1921 painting with that title, but rather a work from 1937-42. The use of doubled lines and lines of color is a development of the late 1930s and not typical of Mondrian's work of the 1920s. While it is true that the 1921 date is frequently given on the web, this is an obvious error. Please consult the definitive catalog of Mondrian's work by Yve-Alain Bois and others. I trained with Dr. Bois and I am an art history Ph.D. I have again corrected the date. Please do not change it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.126.169.83 (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

See also the Tate website at http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ViewWork?cgroupid=999999961&workid=9603&artistid=1651&searchid=10275&tabview=display —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.126.169.83 (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You might like to add a reference. See WP:REFB. Ty 11:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)