Time for a pedantic argument about terminology

...
Firstly let me say I like what you've done
However I don't think it fits the Neo-plasticism description.
From the Tate Glossary
http://www.tate.org.uk/collections/glossary/definition.jsp?entryId=191 Quoting Mondrian:
Quote:
As a pure representation of the human mind, art will express itself in an aesthetically purified, that is to say, abstract form. The new plastic idea cannot therefore, take the form of a natural or concrete representation. This new plastic idea will ignore the particulars of appearance, that is to say, natural form and colour.
As it's identifiably representational, to me it doesn't fit with the complete abstract nature of neo-plasticism. I feel it's somewhat more cubist in style.
All that said, it's still good art to me and far better than anything I could do.
