Jump to content

Talk:Visual arts by indigenous peoples of the Americas/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Lithoderm's Notes to self

Ideas, etc

Others to mention-- not sure how they fit into the big idea yet...

NA

Tyra Naha, for SW

MA

CA

Not much has been written about this region, or at least not nearly as much as SA and MA- perhaps b/c they weren't as urban..

see History of Panama

SA

Other

Additional sources that I'm currently reading

  • Peterson, Susan L.; Heard Museum, Phoenix (1997). Pottery by American Indian women: the legacy of generations. New York: Abbeville Press. ISBN 0-7892-0353-7. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Brody, J. J. (1991). Anasazi and Pueblo painting. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. ISBN 0-8263-1236-5. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  • Townsend, Richard P.; Sharp, Robert P.; Bailey, Garrick Alan (2004). Hero, hawk, and open hand: American Indian art of the ancient Midwest and South. Chicago: Art Institute of Chicago. ISBN 0-300-10601-7. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Jonaitis, Aldona (2006). Art of the Northwest coast. Seattle: University of Washington Press. ISBN 0-295-98636-0. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  • Feder, Norman; Feest, Christian F. Studies in America Indian Art: A Memorial Tribute to Norman Feder (Ernas Monographs, 2). European Review of Native American Studies. ISBN 3000058710. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Rowe, Ann P. (1981). A century of change in Guatemalan textiles. New York: Center for Inter-American Relations. ISBN 0295959088. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  • Pendleton, Mary (1974). Navajo and Hopi weaving techniques. New York: Macmillan. ISBN 0025955004. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  • Pasztory, Esther (1998). Pre-Columbian art. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521645514. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  • Boglár, Lajos; Kovács, Tamás (1983). Indian art from Mexico to Peru. Budapest: Corvina Kiadó. ISBN 9631313255. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Kiowa Five

In the twentieth century artists such as the "Kiowa Five", began painting watercolors in a studio environment under the instruction of westerners. The paintings of the Kiowa Five depicted traditional hunting and ritual activities in a "Flat, modern style".[1][2]

Hi - I temporarily removed this sentence from the article, due to many problems with it. The structure of the entire article seems to work from Archaic - Precontact/Historical - Contemporary, so Kiowa Six/Five would fall under Contemporary: painting. Their first painting instructors were all native – relatives such as Silver Horn (1860-1920), a professional Kiowa painter, and others. Their first formal art training was by a Choctaw nun, Silver Olivia, of St. Patrick's School. Their painting styles were established before they attended OU. They seldom painted hunting scenes – mostly dance scenes. Their style is known most often as "Flat style" or "Southern Plains style." -Uyvsdi (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

That sounds better. I won't be much help next week, but the week after that is my spring break... Lithoderm 02:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Apologies for being somewhat overzealous. I just always want credit to go where credit is due. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Moving caption to main article

Actually, I'm in favor of moving all of the longer captions to the main article, or seriously shortening them. Anthing more than a descriptive line is too much in my opinion. Just my 2 cents. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 04:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

They provide good starts to future sections. -Uyvsdi (talk) 05:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Terminology

I'll bet we will have many discussions about this topic :) but what is the feelings about about Anasazi, Ancestral Pueblo, or Pre-Puebloan cultures? It seems like we should aim for consistency throughout. Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 05:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

I asked Pueblo and Hopi friends on what they thought about the above terms and they were all clear that they prepared the term "Ancestral Pueblo," so hopefully it will be acceptable if I switch "Anasazi" to that. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Isn't Anasazi the term used in the literature on the subject? If so, it would probably be best to stick with that. I haven't read much on the subject, at least not recently, but if I saw "Anasazi" on the page, I would know what it was talking about, whereas I've never heard it referred to as Ancestral Pueblo or Pre-Puebloan. Regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 07:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Both terms currently used in Native American art history books. Anasazi is an earlier term, while Ancestral Pueblo is coming into more common usage. "Anasazi" is a Navajo word meaning "Ancient Enemy," so you can see the problems with that. I have not come across the term Pre-Puebloan outside of this article. Here's a quote from Archaeologist Linda Cordell in Prehistory of the Southwest, discussing the issue:
The name "Anasazi" has come to mean "ancient people," although the word itself is Navajo, meaning "enemy ancestors." It is unfortunate that a non-Pueblo word has come to stand for a tradition that is certainly ancestral Pueblo. The term was first applied to ruins of the Mesa Verde by Richard Wetherill, a rancher and trader who, in 1888-1889, was the first Anglo-American to explore the sites in that area. Wetherill knew and worked with Navajos and understood what the word meant. The name was further sanctioned in archaeology when it was adopted by Alfred V. Kidder, the acknowledged dean of Southwestern Archaeology. Kidder felt that is was less cumbersome than a more technical term he might have used. Subsequently some archaeologists who would try to change the term have worried that because the Pueblos speak different languages, there are different words for "ancestor," and using one might be offensive to people speaking other languages. My own preference is to use Ancient Pueblo or Ancestral Pueblo, where possible, but this too is problematical."[1]
Art historians have perhaps a little more institutional flexibility than archaeologists in updating their terminology, and I believe going along with the wishes of actual Pueblo people, the relatives of the people that created the art in question, is wisest. I only talked about the issue with a handful of Hopi and Pueblo people, but they were all very clear about preferring the term "Ancestral Pueblos." Cheers, Uyvsdi (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Okay, I can see why it's been changed. The article curently mentions says "The Ancestral Pueblo, or Anasazi," - I still think it's good to keep a mention of Anasazi, simply so people who've read literature referring to the Anasazi can know that they are one and the same, perhaps as "The Ancestral Pueblo, formerly known as the Anasazi, a term considered offensive by their modern descendents" or some-such. Regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, keep the one mention, so that way everyone understand exactly which people are being discussed. Plus there is a wikipedia article about Anasazi which I believe has been linked. Anasazi isn't quite as offensive as terms like "Eskimo" or "Papago," the latter of which really doesn't even need to be used. Cheers, Uyvsdi (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi
"Papago" = "Bean-eater", ims. An old slur on these nice rural folks by their northern cousins, the Pima. "Pima", ims, is hispanicized from something like " pi nyi maach", "I don't know" -- supposedly their answer to questions from Spanish explorers. That would make for an interesting article, actually, compiling origins of common Amer-english tribal names.... Anyway, it's good to see some of the old names being revived.
Agree on preferring Ancestral Pueblo too. Best --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Zuni

An area that doesn't seem to be covered here is Zuni fetishism. A good historical source is Cushing's "Zuni Fetishes". Zuni carving is also a very popular facet of contemporary Native American art. A picture and a sentence or two wouldn't hurt. Amerindianarts (talk) 04:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Jump in! - Uyvsdi (talk) 05:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Lead image

So far the article is terrific. Cudo's to Lithoderm and Uyvsdi. But the Lead image is too BIG. Needs to be a little modified....Modernist (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think 300px makes more sense...much better...Modernist (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional images

I couldn't find any pictures of a bannerstone on commons. Are there any collectors of Native American artifacts among us? If so, a photo would be nice. Feel free to list any more photos we need under this header... I will check in on this article occasionally but do not expect to be resuming anywhere near my prior activity level. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

First, thanks to all for taking on a revision of this. Very promising and cool.

I deleted the definitely non-archaic images, all in the circa 1000AD range, definitely not Archaic. I'm not sure about some of the others. Will look around for some more PD images of Archaic stuff. Seems like NPS has some?

As you can see, I fiddled with the gallery, as the default is pretty lame. Will try on a couple more -- see what you think. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding "certified" Archaic artifacts. I'm pretty sure the Arizona petro, File:Petroglyph in Arizona 2007-01-20.jpg, isn't Archaic (but tell me if I'm wrong). Hence the Poverty Point photo, which is artistic-looking, but perhaps should be a placeholder? Comments? --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Re. "Lots of illustrations" it would probably be best to keep the galleries to one or two rows, as there is so much material to cover. Also, I really don't see the purpose of the titled galleries, when there is the section title that works just as well. The bannerstone is really wonderful, thank you! Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 06:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is any compelling reason for titles-- I started trying it for "Inuit art from Canada and Alaska" and "Art from the Eastern woodlands of North America", since they didn't match the section header. Should we agree to title the gallery only when the contents don't match the header?
As far as thumbnail size, looks like it's 2 to 1 so far for small thumbs. But 100px is awfully small. The WP default is 180px, so I reset Archaic to that. Compare to Inuit at 100px, just below. Unfortunately, your personal image-size preferences don't work inside the galleries. And I agree, one or two lines of thumbs would be best. Other opinions? We can certainly keeping fooling with gallery format until we reach consensus. Cheers, --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd say leave the image sizes the default, just like all of the similar articles. Make them larger, and then adding even more images makes the article to long, and the text gets lost. Plus, at it's default size, you get 4 images across, if the subject warrants it 2 rows = 8 images, seems plenty and doesn't take up too much space. After all, this is an encyclopedia, not a gallery of images. Just my 2 cents. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 22:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions

I have a number of suggestions that I will place here instead of working on the article myself.

  • I wonder about the inclusion of images of arrowheads/spearpoints which are usually seen as utilitarian objects, not art objects.
There just isn't much choice for Archaic artifacts -- these are handsome examples, though the Folsom point is kinda blurry....--Pete Tillman (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Berlo and Phillips (1998) discuss bannerstones, arrowheads, etc as art. Really, if it displays the aesthetic values of the society, it's art- especially when they have little other material culture. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 06:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • A number of images included are of poor quality or do not work at gallery size. Like the Nasca lines image, Petroglyphs near Hohokam, Arizona, File:Harvestermountainlord.jpg, File:British Museum67.jpg
  • The Maya section, especially, seems to have too many images (and the Stela D and Stucco mural images are poor.)
  • The Commons category Moche pottery has more distinctive examples than the ones used in this article.
  • Teotihuacano - too many similar masks
  • Are you covering architecture as an art? (Pueblos, tipis, wigwams, kiva, cliff dwellings, longhouse, monumental Meso-American structures, etc.)
  • What about body art? (tatooing, body painting - File:Two Pataxo indians (Brasília, 04 April 2006).jpeg, for example)
  • Jewelry seems underrepresented (earplugs (File:Pataxo004.jpg, File:Pataxo001.jpg), southwest turquoise/silver, etc.)
  • What about decorated musical instruments or weapons? I see one knife and one mace but no clubs, decorated bows, coup sticks, or decorated drums, flutes or rattles.
  • (non-Northwest) North America cultures seem underrepresented - no images of kachinas, war bonnets, calumets (File:Indianerpfeifen.jpg), pow wow outfits (our selection of these on Commons seems poor though). I would say that it needs more on textiles like beadwork (File:Sioux-Baby sling.jpg), quillwork, shellwork, leatherwork.
  • Linking to Commons categories for the various types of art might be good as well.

More importantly you need to define how this article differs from and relates to the Pre-Columbian art article. It seems there is the potential for too much duplication. Rmhermen (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I believe that, traditionally, "Native American" is used for (only) North American art & artifacts, generally from 19th C. on(?), with pre-European contact stuff being called "prehistoric". Early post-contact is called "protohistoric" in SW archaeology -- I'm not sure what art-historians call this stuff. "Pre-Columbian" is generally used for artifacts of that age from Mexico south. I'm not sure what the post-Conquest stuff is called there, and I'm also not sure about the terminology in South America. I've seen "post-Conquest" and "colonial" used, ims. Note that the "Pre-Columbian art" category at Commons is used as a catch-all.
Anyway, we do need to get the terminology and "turf" sorted out. Any art historians or South Americans in the group? Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I teach Native American Art History at a tribal college and am an American Indian artist. Have been adding to contemporary art a medium at time. Unfortunately I have much more information about precontact South American art than contemporary but am adding what I can (in fact, have info about Quechua photographers). BTW I'm well aware that this is an incredibly long article already. My hope is to keep adding contemporary media then eventually create individual pages for each.
There's no ideal term for all Native peoples from the Americas (anything with "Indian" would exclude Inuit, Alutiiq, Yup'ik/Cupik peoples) – "Native American" is probably as good as any out there. Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Wow, you're right -- it's getting BIG. Anyway, if a professional art historian wants Native American for all the New World, that's good enough for me [grin]. We might consider splitting the article into pre- and post-contact? Or make a framework article for the past 12,000 years, which seems to be where we're headed now. I suppose it's not that critical, we can slice & dice the content later, so long as good content is written. And good free photos found.
What do you envision doing with Pre-Columbian art? There's really not much there...
Do you have a opinion on my gallery-fiddling? Hopefully others will chime in. I definitely like the idea of LOTS of illustrations.
Just FYI, I know a fair bit about SW US and northern Mexico prehistory (and history), and a little about the rest of the New World, more about old stuff than contemporary. This is knowledge gained from a lifetime of reading and collecting, and going to every museum collection I can. I'm a geologist. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
My opinion is that eventually the article can be subdivided into many separate articles as Uyvsdi suggests. When Litho started building the article - not too long ago - it was really long overdue about a big subject that needs study and is really immense. In my opinion it and a series of articles should cover North, South and Central America both historical and contemporary...I made an attempt here: Painting in the Americas before Colonization but this article is much more comprehensive...Modernist (talk) 04:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
The most logical thing to do would be to split out Uyvsdi's excellent sections on modern and contemporary art into their own article and include a summary with a link. In the article Pre-Columbian art the term seems to apply to both continents, but I really must throw up my hands when it comes to terminology (I cannot claim Uyvsdi's expertise, being a college freshman..). The first thing that comes to mind would be splitting it up in three large sub-articles, with summaries on this page: Pre-columbian, contact to 1900, and modern and contemporary. The problem is that it is impossible to set a single date of contact that applies for all regions. "Pre-columbian" is most often applied to Meso and south america because, I think, change occurred so rapidly after the 1492 contact, with the conquistadors and whatnot. The English don't get started with North America until 1607, and so forth. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 06:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm no expert (especially in a field *this* broad!). Having looked around most of the larger Art articles on Wikipedia, it seems most of them are overviews with not too much substance (actually most of them look like they need work). This page can be generalized and point to specific articles, but personally I really appreciate having north/south, old/new (at least as a summary) presented in one place because tribes have traded and interacted across borders and there is continuity through different time periods. The art history books that fragment Native art along nation-state borders minimize the cultural exchanges across these borders (How many tribes are located both in Mexico and the US today? How much cultural overlap is there between the Caribbean Islands and mainland Central America? A lot!) There is also the implication (more common in earlier writing than current) that precontact tribes have no relationship to tribes today. Despite the immense cultural upheavals of the 16th-20th centuries, they are still the same people. Just my two cents. Cheers, Uyvsdi (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi
As far as Mesoamerica goes, I'm still waiting for Madman 2001 to arrive. I don't know who will work on South America- it might be me, this summer. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 06:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Re. "Lots of illustrations" it would probably be best to keep the galleries to one or two rows, as there is so much material to cover. Also, I really don't see the purpose of the titled galleries, when there is the section title that works just as well. The bannerstone is really wonderful, thank you! Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 06:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Commons is no help either: Native American art is a subcategory of Pre-Columbian art, which is a subcategory of Native American art, which are both subcategories of [Native American crafts. Who knows? Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Eventually this article might be renamed Indigenous visual arts of the Americas, since that would be more accurate.-Uyvsdi (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

List of indigenous artists of the Americas

Hi, I created this list as a companion to this article. Please feel free to edit it. Even while reading scholarly works on Latin American art, it's a challenge to determine who is and who is not Native or Mestizo among artists from Latin America. I have some listed (Miguel Cabrera, Frida Kahlo, Rodolfo Morales, Diego Rivera, Rufino Tamayo, Camilo Egas, Roberto Mamani Mamani, Oswaldo Guayasamín, the Mujeres Creando, Martín Chambi, Santos Chávez) Even some artists involved in Indigenist movements seem to be non-Indian (such as José Sabogal). Can anyone offer insight into additional indigenous artists from Latin America? Thanks so much! -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

I also created the category, Category:Latin American artists of indigenous descent. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

South America

This looks like a great start. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Uncited works

Below are books there were previously listed as references but not actually cited in the article. If anyone actually wants to cite material from these books, the info is available below to reinstate in the article.

-Uyvsdi (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Naming to Indigenous art of the Americas

Should this redirect Indigenous art of the Americas not be the actually name of this article and the redirect from Native American art? It would only make sense to match all the other Indigenous peoples of the Americas articles. anyways pls tell me what you think because i have a great urge to fix it now!...Moxy (talk) 01:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Moxy, but I've reversed your copy and paste of this article into a new one with that title. If it is determined that the article is to be renamed, then it would need to be WP:MOVEd instead so that the edit history is preserved. If that can't be done directly because the target has a non-trivial edit history of its own, then it just needs an admin to complete the move of the article & its talkpg, that's all.

However, it might be best to await for some confirmation that contributors here are ok with the proposed move, before embarking. I don't have any particular objection, and no particular problem with its current title either. Not sure how others feel tho'. --cjllw ʘ TALK 11:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

ok sorry guy..I will request a move! The word Native is not appropriate, only the Americans use it.. the rest of the world see the word Native meaning Native-born citizen and/or Natural born citizen of the United States. I think its time this article was updated to match the rest of the Indigenous articles......Moxy (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page moved to Visual arts by indigenous peoples of the Americas. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Native American art → Indigenous art of the Americas —I think its time this article was updated to match the rest of the Indigenous articles, the word Native means Native-born citizen and/or Natural born citizen of the United States plus the WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America had decided long ago to use the word Indigenous when dealing with articles that cover all of the Americans, since the majority of countries in the Americans use the word Indigenous and not Native or Indian in everyday life. I think the article should match Indigenous peoples of the Americas the main article is the series, like its sub pages Indigenous Movements in the Americas, Indigenous Amerindian genetics, Indigenous languages of the Americas, List of indigenous artists of the Americas, List of writers from peoples indigenous to the Americas. Moxy (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

"Indigenous art" would mean any art that originated in the Americas: cartoons, salsa or samba music, etc. Indian doesn't fly even though it is the preferred term throughout most of Latin America and the US (ironically, it's completely acceptable in Indian communities but not in urban or non-Native communities), because Inuit, Cup'ik, and Yup'ik art is included. "Native American" and "Indigenous American" work in Latin America/US, because it's inferred that the terms refer to people from the Americas as opposed to people from the Us, but apparently not in Canada. The article only addresses Visual Art not literary, musical, theatrical, or other arts... so, even though I hate long article article and personally prefer keeping the name Native American art, if you want to be precise, the article would be titled Visual arts of the Indigenous Americans or Visual arts by indigenous peoples of the Americas. -Uyvsdi (talk) 05:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Well thats neat I would say Native art is art made/Native to the Americas by any ethnic group, were i see Indigenous art meaning by a person or persons who are Indigenous peoples, I find this interesting how different regions see different meanings in the terms. This are the Canadian government terms/meanings "Native" is a word similar in meaning to "Aboriginal." "Native peoples" is a collective term to describe the descendants of the original peoples of North America. The term is increasingly seen as outdated (particularly when used as a noun) and is starting to lose currency then --> Indigenous means "native to the area." In this sense, Aboriginal people are indeed indigenous to North America. As a proper name for a people, the term is capitalized to form "Indigenous peoples." Its meaning is similar to "Aboriginal peoples," "Native peoples" or "First Peoples. The term is rarely used in the Department, and when it is used, it usually refers to Aboriginal people internationally. Outside the Department, the term is gaining currency, particularly among some Aboriginal scholars. The term is also used by the United Nations in its working groups and in its Decade of the World's Indigenous People (note that, in this instance, no "s" is placed at the end of "people")...So in Canadian We have 3 Indigenous peoples collectively called Aboriginals the term indigenous is also used because its the international term. The Untied Nations uses indigenous as the term all be it not an official term, so realy its only the US that uses the term Native to describe there Indigenous peoples. Just like them using MPH and Gallons still, they have just not caught up to the rest of the world. However i do see your point in there may be confusion so we need to find a better title ... I like Visual arts by indigenous peoples of the Americas is best. My main problem is the world see the word Native meaning someone of this nature--> Nativism (politics) an not an indigenous people (This is what i was thought in University the meaning is)!! If i am not wrong from what i have studied nativist (with its term in place) was present in the USA with a political party called Native American Party that had nothing to do with indigenous peoples. As for the term Indian well that just not possible for so many reasons, that i am sure you are aware of... This is cool i like to see what others think of this terms and there meanings. Moxy (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The plural "peoples" is vital to express ethnic and cultural diversity found in the Americas. Aboriginal is not widely used south of the Canadian border, except when referring to aboriginal peoples of Australia. I've never met anyone who used the term "Amerindian" to describe themselves. I wish there were more Latin American indigenous wiki editors that could add their voices to these discussions, but yes, Native American is used in Latin America, when writing in English, but Indian is more commonplace. As an American Indian artist, teaching Native American art history at a tribal college to Native students from Canada, the US, Mexico, and the Caribbean, I can assure you that "Native peoples" is far from outdated - the most obvious example being Native Peoples magazine, which is hemispheric in scope. For the purpose of wikipedia, Visual arts by indigenous peoples of the Americas is fine. -Uyvsdi (talk) 00:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

great talk..i do see that Latin American scholars use it widely sorry i did not notice how widely till you mentioned it.  :) ..Ok so lets go with Visual arts by indigenous peoples of the Americas as you first proposed that way we are using a term that most Nations will understand perfectly clear.....Moxy (talk) 01:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Tonina prisoner

The picture should be given a turn, for in reality, the man is sitting with the head in the neck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.162.130.139 (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Great Basin, California, Plateau

Great Basin and Plateau could be separated, but anything to shorten/consolidate the article is probably best, Often they are combined as the Intermontane West in Native art history literature. Conversely California and the Great Basin could be combined, since several Great Basin tribes straddle the border of the state of California. Cultural regions will always be slightly imprecise, since tribes are fluid. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Archive 1
  1. ^ (Berlo and Phillips, 216)
  2. ^ The Kiowa Five from the National Anthropological Archives.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Visual_arts_by_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas/Archive_1&oldid=1137300070"