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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

I forgot, I came across this 'common usage' thing before. I also notice that the article on Rembrandt van Rijn is titled simply 'Rembrandt Harmenszoon van RijnRembrandt'. 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)[reply]

Rembrandt Harmenszoon van RijnRembrandt (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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]