Talk:Painting in the Americas before European colonization/Archive 1

Glazing vs. Painting
When dealing with ceramics a distinction needs to be made between vessels that are glazed and vessels that are painted. The Nazca vessels here are glazed with slip before the vessel was fired; once fired the slip, which is basically watery clay with mineral pigments suspended in it, actually bonds with the surface of the clay. By contrast vessels that are painted are first fired, then covered with a ground, and then painted - this is a much less permanent form of decoration and very technically distinct from glazing.

The Nazca technique is discussed here:, and I have to wonder if the same is not true of works from the other cultures as well. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 02:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent find Litho, and yes it sounds standard for most cultures too...Modernist (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not sure the distinction is very relevant here - in this context I think "painting" simply means "applying pigments" regardless of implements used and the precise technicalities.·Maunus· ƛ · 03:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you also. Basically the fact that applied imagery via paint, glaze, line, etc. indicates a visual painterly facility being utilized and as litho points out in several different ways and techniques...Modernist (talk) 03:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The point is not what Maunus thinks painting means, it is that in scholarly literature "painting" has a more specific meaning. I did not suggest that we write "Glazing in the Americas before colonization", because that would not be a worthwhile distinction. I simply think that glazed works should be identified as such, as opposed to painted works. We are simply identifying the media: it is as basic as labeling paintings "oil on canvas" or "watercolor on paper".... Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I referenced your link, I think that is the way to go..add references to the varied techniques. Glazing is misleading in a way also; it is really painting clay with clay; pigmented slip, and then firing for permanence...Modernist (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right. At least one of the sources I found refers to it as "Slip painting". Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 14:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't object to identifying the precise techniques used in different works - but I would object if it were suggested that glazed objects didn't belong in an article about "painting". I don't think you are suggesting that so there is not really a dispute here. If you do find painting to be such a precise term as to exclude glazing then we could talk about renaming the article to "precolumbian iconography", or some such to allow for inclusion of all relevant techniques.

Pre-contact American ceramics were seldom, if ever, glazed. You might be looking for a different term to describe the Nasca ceramic painting process.-Uyvsdi (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Recent images
If this article is "Painting in the Americas before Colonization," then why are there images from the 19th and 20th centuries? I didn't remove them but do wonder about their inclusion. -Uyvsdi (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Renaming
I would like to propose renaming the article Painting in the Americas before Colonization to Precolumbian painting of the Americas. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * We already have this article Pre-Columbian art...Modernist (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Pre-Columbian painting might work...Modernist (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Given both this and Pre-Columbian art are pretty short, and much of the painting is on pottery, sculpture etc, I think they should be merged until they are much longer. Johnbod (talk) 20:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with a merge. I can take care of it during the course of the week. Eventually, someday, I'll create Indigenous painting of the Americas. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * Hold your horses "Pre-Columbian" in not a term uses all over the Americans. Why would we use this old term that we have removed from so many other articles. We have been working so long to remove this old term now its back - pls lets not work backwards
 * Okay........ where is Pre-Columbian not used? It's definitely used here in US and definitely used in indigenous art circles, since the arrival of Columbus is probably the most single cataclysmic event to occur in the Americas in the last 10,000 years. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * Yes its widely used in the USA - However its more accurate to say "Pre-colonization" because we have a time range of over 300 years of colonization. Art from the 1850s in norther British Colombia would be "Pre-colonization" and say  for the interior of Brazil not colonized  till the 1930s.  To say Precolumbian might be interpreted as meaning  art from before 1400s - The article should be about  art before "western contact" that varies  greatly in time all over the Americas. The article is just not developed enough as of now and only covers south of the border - but intime we can fix this.Moxy (talk) 23:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Precolumbian art does mean art before 1492 ±100 years. Regarding contact, Inuit people in Newfoundland demonstrably had European contact in the 11th century. Painting in the Americas before Colonization is a trainwreck. I'll leave it be, and hopefully other folks will want to tinker with it. Pre-Columbian art and Colonial art are both well-established art terms; Art before colonization and Pre-colonial art or any other several variations are not commonly used art terms, especially not in regards to the Americas, so [the article Precolumbian art] should keep its name, but should be expanded to a general outline, similar to Visual arts by indigenous peoples of the Americas, since the scope it so enormous. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi