There's an interesting case study I've read that showcases exactly just how complicated this seemingly simple question is.

Archaeologists and historians have studied two colonial religious institutions in Cartagena de Indias, Colombia: a Jesuit school and a Dominican convent. These date to the 17th and 18th centuries, many decades after Spanish conquest. The ceramics used at the Jesuit school were all in a European style, crafted in a loceria on the nearby island of Tierra Bomba. This coincides with the very impositional nature of the known Jesuit practices there. The school emphasized European manners and language, and it employed many imported slaves. Ceramics from the Dominican convent were, at the beginning, indistinguishable from local styles. There was much greater variance in form than at the Jesuit school, as well as in faunal remains in food prep areas. This corroborates evidence that Dominican practices focused on religious indoctrination by approaching the locals at their level. There seems to have been a bit of a rivalry between the two institutions.

We see here that even within the same town, there is no simple for answer to your question. Ceramics in European and local styles were used for everyday tasks long after the Spanish arrived. The Europeans introduced their own styles and techniques (most notably glazing), but it was still ceramics. The decline of quotidean pottery has been more apparent in the past century, with the introduction of plastic alternatives, than it was during the Spanish occupation. Globalization and tourism have further complicated things. Modern craftsman still produce vessels for local use, but they must also produce pieces to sell to stay relevant in a global cash economy. Many have turned to producing tourist wares. But again, not Spanish stuff. You may be confusing some of this effect with what you said "showcasing," though plenty of precolonial ceramics were produced for purely ceremonial or decorative purposes, so it's not a point terribly relevant to the Spanish conquest either.

I am not well versed on South American pottery, but in Mesoamerica, very early on there was pottery made for everyday activities and pottery meant to display status or prestige, or what you refer to as “showcasing”. In fact there is a debate over the earliest forms of pottery in Mesoamerica. Some of the earliest pottery in the entire American Continent originated in Colombia (the Valdivias complex), and it seems to have migrated north to the Intermediate Area and then to Mesoamerica. While some people, Phil Arnold being the most prominent, argued that these forms (the so-called Tecomate shape for the Barra phase, 1800-1500 BC, of the Soconusco area), were purely utilitarian, meaning just made for everyday activities, others like John Clark have argued that even this early into the history of Mesoamerica, pottery had deeper meanings than just utility. Among them was the displaying of wealth and prestige in competitive feasting. I personally believed that Clark’s aggrandizing model is correct which indicate that at the dawn of Mesoamerica pottery and the practices around its use might have been used to create social differentiation, certainly not a everyday use.

Again as far as Mesoamerica, what the Spanish introduced were new techniques and decorative styles. Among these new ones a particularly prominent was called Maiolica, which required the use of metallic oxides to create vibrant colors and a glazing, something that Mesoamerica never developed because it required a great deal of heat. However, in terms of social principles, the ways Spanish material culture was adopted was more complicated that just imposition or rejection. For example, in the site of Yanhuitlan in Oaxaca, it seems that the native elite were the ones that more easily introduced the use of fancy Spanish ware, whereas the commoners continued to use native fancy ware.