With more than a century and a half of pre-Columbian research, it seems that a sensible interdisciplinarity between historical-anthropological and philosophical-aesthetic research has never been proposed. The scarce bibliography on the plastic work only points out historical objects with redundant and trivial descriptions without the depth that a metaphysical entity requires. Opinions do not perceive designs, plastic genres and their morphological styles as such. It is necessary to differentiate our European cultural formation with respect to the study of the various Amerindian aesthetics because it is essential to educate about the particular configuration of the works, their contents and expressions. The need for an iconographic classification is axiomatic, it does not require proof. The need for an iconological interpretation is obvious and of vital importance: it must try to "dishide" immanence.