Positive and Negative space
I First came across the idea of positive and negative space whilst researching artists to analyse for my dissertation. Takahiro Iwasaki is a Japanese artist who meticulously creates minute sculptures from everyday objects.
For example he has created a mountain and shoreline on a roll of duct tape and a row of electricity pylons that sit on the bristles of toothbrushes.
This in itself creates a dichotomy of space. The dichotomy between the very large being reproduced, to scale, on the very small. However, this isn’t the concept of space that I was interested in- although they are brilliant sculptures. What interested me was the space surrounding the sculpture and what affect it had on the viewer.
I defined the sculpture, painting, photograph etc. as the ‘positive’ space or ‘active’ space and the space surrounding the object as the ‘negative’ space or ‘inactive’ (although by definition it isn’t inactive at all). I was curious about what effect the surrounding space has on particular works, particularly works that are very small- as there must be a lot of negative space.
Does the negative space dominate or highlight the work?
How does the viewer react to something that is very small being placed in a vast open space?
Conversely how does to the viewer react to a work that is placed amongst others?
All these questions above deal with the very small and they are displayed in a gallery. But the same concept applies for the very large.
How does negative space affect a particularly large work- a painting for example?
If the painting is sufficiently large does it effect it at all?
Is the painting less effective if it is small as opposed to very large in conveying an element of space?
I have said nothing here about the composition of the painting and how that affects the viewer or indeed even made the comparison over which is more ‘important’ (if important is the right word). At the moment I feel as if the two play off each other and that no painting can fully disregard one either facet.
Side note: A argument could be made for a painting of sufficient size that when viewing it the spectator’s vision is completely engulfed in the painting- Barnet Newman’s Vir Heroic Sublimis for example. It is true at this point that there is no negative space at all- However when approaching the painting or passing the painting in the gallery the negative space becomes clear.
