Talk:Nihonga

I have genuine reservations about the assertion that Nihonga is a watercolor technique. I checked the watercolor site, and was even more convinced that the assertion would lead to greater confusion than elucidation. This brings me to an even greater conflict I see with many of the art painting related articles. The emphasis on solvents ie: water, oil, etc. from the standpoint of either artist or manufacturer is less a way of categorizing mediums than the binder from which paints are made. Might I suggest categorizing paints by binder ie: egg tempera, polymer based tempera, encaustic, oil, acrylic, watercolor (gum arabic), animal glues (nihonga etc.), magna, fresco (buon fresco, a secco) etc. At this point, materials are lumped into the categories based on their water soluble capabilities, which would somehow shelve watercolor with fresco and egg tempera and magna. Please, I'd like some feedback. I'm averse to making changes to an otherwise excellent article. Rawkcuf (talk) 13:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Rawkcuf.

I changed the reference to gold and silver foil to gold and silver leaf. (a common mistake- the difference being in thickness...)

I suggest a change in the remark that the portrayal of plants and animals are generally done without outlines. That may be a difficult assertion to back up in light of the long tradition of outlines coming from the kano school.Rawkcuf (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Rawkcuf.