Overleg:Nieuwe Beelding

message: We would appreciate some help from an English speaker. We're revising the article on Neoplasticism, based on this article in Dutch Wikipedia. Could a knowledgeable person help us please? 
We're translating the Dutch section here:
===Idee versus materie===
In zijn Grondbegrippen der nieuwe beeldende kunst stelt Van Doesburg vast dat in de kunstgeschiedenis twee soorten kunstwerken te onderscheiden zijn: kunstwerken die voortkomen uit de idee (ideo-plastische kunst) en kunstwerken die voortkomen uit de materie (physio-plastische kunst).Zie Van Doesburg (1919): p. 54. Hij toont dit aan met een beeld van de Egyptische god Horus en een Diadumenos. Van Doesburg, maar vooral ook Mondriaan, voorspelden dat alle kunsten in de toekomst zouden ‘verzinnelijken’ en alleen nog maar uit de idee zouden voortkomen. Het gevolg hiervan was dat de voorstelling (het object, de natuur) van ondergeschikt belang was. Het eindstadium van dit proces was de abstracte kunst. De kunstenaars van De Stijl gingen echter nog een stap verder en probeerden hun werk langs rationele weg te zuiveren van alles wat nog enigszins aan de natuur herinnerde.
And we're having trouble with the sentence: "Van Doesburg, maar vooral ook Mondriaan, voorspelden dat alle kunsten in de toekomst zouden ‘verzinnelijken’ en alleen nog maar uit de idee zouden voortkomen.", particularly with the word ‘verzinnelijken’, which is translated by Google as 'symbolize'. Is there a better translation of that word?
Also, is there a reference in any document by Mondrian to support this sentence?  
Egrabczewski (overleg) 28 mei 2024 17:23 (CEST)
replies: text: Hello @Egrabczewski, you really did a number on the english article! The dutch article has the same issues that the english one had, in that it mainly relies on primary sources. This is my mistake. After writing the article, I wasn't happy with it and then I lost interest. Sorry about that. But again you did a very good job on the english article. Overy is a very good source for information.

text: I'm looking up the word "verzinnelijken", which means something like "to satisfy the senses" and I think I made an error or typo here. Mondriaan uses this word, but very rarely (three times as far as I could find). I think what I meant here was "verinnerlijken". You will find this word in almost every text Mondrian has ever written (see this search on the dutch Wikisource). And it means something like "to deepen", "to make something less superficial". I'm sure authors like Overy have a better definition of this word, as it is almost synonymous with neo-plasticism. In French he calls it "intériorisation" (see s:fr:Le néo-plasticisme).

text: I hope this is of some help. Vincent Steenberg-Overleg 28 mei 2024 20:25 (CEST)
replies: text: :Thank you Vincent for your help. Does reading Mondrian in the original Dutch make more sense that reading it in English? Do his arguments seem rational and comprehensible to you? In English, I find the translations a big struggle. What do you make of the word "plastic" in English. Is this a sensible translation of "beelding"? What does this word mean to you?   Egrabczewski (overleg) 28 mei 2024 23:01 (CEST)
replies: text: ::You're not the only one. My old professor ones said "don't linger on their theories too much; they were an excentric bunch those members of De Stijl". And that's probably true for Mondrian. Also his writings are heavily influenced by Theosophy. Other theosophical artists roundabout that time, like Mathieu Lauweriks, were even more esoteric in their writings. Plus Mondrian wrote quite a lot about what is really a simple theory, so its easy not to see the woods for the trees. But the main argument is, I think: mankind has consciousness, consciousness leads to the development of the mind (spirituality), and this inevitably leads to abstraction.

text: ::The word beelding, is difficult to translate into english. The verb is beelden (= to create, to shape, to form, etc.). Compare the words afbeelding (= picture, illustration, image) and beeld (= image, sculpture). The members of De Stijl, esp. Theo van Doesburg, played a lot with that word making composite words like woordbeelding, kleurbeelding or wereldbeelding. These sometimes don't make sense. In woordbeelding for example the woord (word) and beeld (image) seem to be a mismatch. A word is not an image, but like I said its a play on words. Lost in translation. Vincent Steenberg-Overleg 29 mei 2024 10:40 (CEST)
replies: text: :::Thank you! It's good to know that it's not just the English speakers who have problems with Mondrian's writings. :-) Egrabczewski (overleg) 29 mei 2024 11:02 (CEST)
thread_title:  English Wikipedia needs help for their article on Neo-Plasticism  

message: In zijn Grondbegrippen der nieuwe beeldende kunst stelt Van Doesburg vast dat in de kunstgeschiedenis twee soorten kunstwerken te onderscheiden zijn: kunstwerken die voortkomen uit de idee (ideo-plastische kunst) en kunstwerken die voortkomen uit de materie (physio-plastische kunst).Zie Van Doesburg (1919): p. 54. Hij toont dit aan met een beeld van de Egyptische god Horus en een Diadumenos. Van Doesburg, maar vooral ook Mondriaan, voorspelden dat alle kunsten in de toekomst zouden ‘verzinnelijken’ en alleen nog maar uit de idee zouden voortkomen. Het gevolg hiervan was dat de voorstelling (het object, de natuur) van ondergeschikt belang was. Het eindstadium van dit proces was de abstracte kunst. De kunstenaars van De Stijl gingen echter nog een stap verder en probeerden hun werk langs rationele weg te zuiveren van alles wat nog enigszins aan de natuur herinnerde.
And we're having trouble with the sentence: "Van Doesburg, maar vooral ook Mondriaan, voorspelden dat alle kunsten in de toekomst zouden ‘verzinnelijken’ en alleen nog maar uit de idee zouden voortkomen.", particularly with the word ‘verzinnelijken’, which is translated by Google as 'symbolize'. Is there a better translation of that word?
Also, is there a reference in any document by Mondrian to support this sentence?  
Egrabczewski (overleg) 28 mei 2024 17:23 (CEST)
replies: text: Hello @Egrabczewski, you really did a number on the english article! The dutch article has the same issues that the english one had, in that it mainly relies on primary sources. This is my mistake. After writing the article, I wasn't happy with it and then I lost interest. Sorry about that. But again you did a very good job on the english article. Overy is a very good source for information.

text: I'm looking up the word "verzinnelijken", which means something like "to satisfy the senses" and I think I made an error or typo here. Mondriaan uses this word, but very rarely (three times as far as I could find). I think what I meant here was "verinnerlijken". You will find this word in almost every text Mondrian has ever written (see this search on the dutch Wikisource). And it means something like "to deepen", "to make something less superficial". I'm sure authors like Overy have a better definition of this word, as it is almost synonymous with neo-plasticism. In French he calls it "intériorisation" (see s:fr:Le néo-plasticisme).

text: I hope this is of some help. Vincent Steenberg-Overleg 28 mei 2024 20:25 (CEST)
replies: text: :Thank you Vincent for your help. Does reading Mondrian in the original Dutch make more sense that reading it in English? Do his arguments seem rational and comprehensible to you? In English, I find the translations a big struggle. What do you make of the word "plastic" in English. Is this a sensible translation of "beelding"? What does this word mean to you?   Egrabczewski (overleg) 28 mei 2024 23:01 (CEST)
replies: text: ::You're not the only one. My old professor ones said "don't linger on their theories too much; they were an excentric bunch those members of De Stijl". And that's probably true for Mondrian. Also his writings are heavily influenced by Theosophy. Other theosophical artists roundabout that time, like Mathieu Lauweriks, were even more esoteric in their writings. Plus Mondrian wrote quite a lot about what is really a simple theory, so its easy not to see the woods for the trees. But the main argument is, I think: mankind has consciousness, consciousness leads to the development of the mind (spirituality), and this inevitably leads to abstraction.

text: ::The word beelding, is difficult to translate into english. The verb is beelden (= to create, to shape, to form, etc.). Compare the words afbeelding (= picture, illustration, image) and beeld (= image, sculpture). The members of De Stijl, esp. Theo van Doesburg, played a lot with that word making composite words like woordbeelding, kleurbeelding or wereldbeelding. These sometimes don't make sense. In woordbeelding for example the woord (word) and beeld (image) seem to be a mismatch. A word is not an image, but like I said its a play on words. Lost in translation. Vincent Steenberg-Overleg 29 mei 2024 10:40 (CEST)
replies: text: :::Thank you! It's good to know that it's not just the English speakers who have problems with Mondrian's writings. :-) Egrabczewski (overleg) 29 mei 2024 11:02 (CEST)
thread_title: Idee versus materie