Methodology of Negative Architecture

My previous blog listed 2 ways in which I thought architecture could be "negative". The first is by "de-objectifying it" by fitting itself into the fabric of its surroundings (landscape). The second is by emphasizing its programmatic spaces and the elements in those spaces above the the architecture itself.

Here are a few ways I think "negative architecture" can be accomplished.

1. Framing:

In the case of architecture - the "built" architectural form frames the landscape or programmatic elements. A picture frame protects (shelters) the painting, photograph, etc. The importance and emphasis lies with the artwork. The frame is used to shelter and enhance/complement the art. Negative architecture could be seen in the same light. A good example of this is Kahn's Salk Institute. Made of monolithic concrete, wood and glass, the buildings can be seen as objects in the landscape. However, the placement of the buildings puts emphasis on the landsacape and the view to the horizon. This scene becomes the focus of the buildings and not the buildings themselves.



The quality of the space created by the "framing elements" is also the focus of these buildings. The emphasis along the colonnade is the experiential qualities of surrounding environment (light/shadow/wind/calm) and the changes as one walks along - rather than the building itself.


2. Blending

Blend as I define it here is from Merriam Webster Dictionary

1a: to mingle intimately or unobtrusively, 1b: to combine into an integrated whole 2: to produce a harmonious effect.

Blending is unique to every situation since its methodology is to combine itself with the immediate landscape. It can involve various sub-methodologies including: form (shape), color and texture.

My previous example of the Ysios Winery uses these three methodologies.
Form: the curves of the roof mimicing the mountain range behind.
Color: The silver-white roof also fitting in with the snow capped mountains - the terra cotta exterior walls blending with the dirt fields in the foreground.
Texture: The polished rectilinear wood beams complementing the wood strips that make up the wine barrels.

3. Diffusion (diffuse)

1. To pour out and cause to spread freely.
2. To spread about or scatter; disseminate.
3. To make less brilliant; soften.

I think the definitions of diffusion are very revealing. the third gives the purpose of "negative architecture," while the second gives the means.
Diffusion can be seen as the flip side of blending. Blending is the process of lessening the "objectivity" of a building by have it match its surroundings (at least in some ways). Diffusion takes an object (building in a landscape) that doesn't "match" and seeks to lessen its impact (visual contradiction) by reducing its whole into smaller parts. I almost think of this as a screen/fence - where one gets "glimpses" of the object/building peaking through its surroundings.

I think Kuma's buildings are a good representation of this methodology. - See the images on the main page.

I am currently looking for some other specific examples that I clipped out a couple of years ago - that I think are also representative of this methodology. Can't remember the architect but will post if I find them.

When I first read this courses syllabus and looked up images of Kuma's work - diffuse was the first word that popped into my mind - So I found it very interesting to read the article on particlisation. I am going to try to find the similarites and differences in these two concepts - or are they the same?

First Thoughts

Negative Architecture: I think negative architecture can be seen in two ways. The first deals with how architecture relates and interacts with its surroundings. The second is how it relates and interacts with its program (its useful purpose). First: Positive architecture (in the way we are discussing it) is a built structure that exists for its own sake. As described in the course description it as an object set against a background. It is a sculptural object that does serve a useful purpose (shelter, etc) and may interact with its environs but is viewed as separate from its surroundings. Negative Architecture ceases to exist by itself, but is viewed as part of the fabric of its environment. The boundaries are blurred. As Mark said, "Space does not flow merely inside and outside; space does not flow around the building, and separately within the building. For negative architecture, space flows through the building. Space is not broken at the threshold or at the facade." I think this is true not only for space but also the "solid" aspects of the architecture - the walls, roof, & other structure reach out into its surroundings.

In looking up the definition of "negative" and "negative space" on wikipedia, I came across two interesting terms. Ma and Wei Wu Wei. According to wikipedia:

Ma (間) is a Japanese word which can be roughly translated as "empty", "gap" or "space" or as "the space between two structural parts."

Wei Wu Wei is a Chinese term that can be broken down as such: Wu may be translated as not have or without; Wei may be translated as do, act, serve as, govern or effort. The literal meaning of Wu Wei is "without action" and is often included in the paradox wei wu wei: "action without action" or "effortless doing".

Both of the terms are fundamental taoist concepts. After reading up on them, I'm not going to remotely pretend that I understand the philosophical nature of them, but I think they can be related to our research on negative architecture.

In relating the term "ma" to how negative architecture relates and interacts with its surroundings; Alan Fletcher in his book,The Art of Looking Sideways, describes space as substance. He goes on to give examples:

Cézanne painted and modelled space. Giacometti sculpted by "taking the fat off space". Mallarmé conceived poems with absences as well as words. Ralph Richardson asserted that acting lay in pauses... Isaac Stern described music as "that little bit between each note - silences which give the form".

If space is substance - can substance be space or the "gap". Wouldn't it be interesting to view architecture not as the object against the landscape but as the gap or space in the landscape. I think the interchangeability of space/substance is the core of negative architecture. Space and substance are two sides of the same coin. Negative architecture seeks to embrace the connection b/w the two.

I'm going to use "wei wu wei" to try and relate how negative architecture deals with its program. Every building performs an action: it encloses space, houses items and people, it elicits responses from people (both physical and mental/emotional), regulates climate, etc.
Y^{ou can say that these "actions" are its program. The difference b/w positive and negative architecture is how its performs these actions. Wu wei (and much of taoist thought) is tied to the ego or the denial of ego. I see positive architecture as the egomaniac - look at me - its bends it program to its own purpose/form, i.e. symbolism. These actions are very noticible and are meant to be. Negative architecture is derived from its program (and as above, its surroundings)... the form flows naturally from the actions it performs. The focus is not on the "architecture" itself - but on the whole, the structure, its purpose (actions, program) and its surroundings.}

^{I'm going to use two examples to illustrate: first for positive architecture, Gehry's much loved/hated Stata Center.}
The Stata center is very much an object set in its environment. It is not to be seen as part of its surroundings but as a sculpture set apart. The building is about obviousness - look at me action.. that leads to symbolism. The Boston Globe architecture columnist Robert Campbell stated

"the Stata is always going to look unfinished. It also looks as if it's about to collapse. Columns tilt at scary angles. Walls teeter, swerve, and collide in random curves and angles. Materials change wherever you look: brick, mirror-surface steel, brushed aluminum, brightly colored paint, corrugated metal. Everything looks improvised, as if thrown up at the last moment. That's the point. The Stata's appearance is a metaphor for the freedom, daring, and creativity of the research that's supposed to occur inside it."

Even in its review the architecture is all about its own action and not on its surroundings or program. Its purpose becomes symbolic.
It's real purpose (or program) in some instances took second place to its symbolic actions.. leaky roofs, slanted walls that couldn't hold books and made people dizzy, confusing floor layouts, lack of visual and acoustic privacy, etc. That is not to say that the Stata Center doesn't work, b/c it does in many of it main purposes, providing open flexible space, gathering spaces, interactions b/w faculty and students, etc but it works to fulfill its own symbolic purposes.
For negative architecture: Calatrava's Ysios Winery -

Calatrava may be more known for his "sculptural" positive architecture, but I believe the winery serves as an example of negative architecture in both ways - it's integration with its surroundings and its quiet integration w/ its program.


The winery responds to and enhances its surroundings, I think it fulfills both the space and substance sides of the coin. It reaches out solidly into its surroundings by blending but is also provides a space or gap in the fabric of the landscape. Although this building is for the most part solid you can sense the surroundings flowing through the building. The use of color and material enable this.

The action of this building is to provide housing for wine making equipment, wine storage, and tourist interaction. I have not thoroughly researched the design of this building, but to me there seems to be a lack of overarching symbolism to this purpose. The building shape is a linear progression. Delivery of grapes on one side to finished product on the other - visitors enter at the center for wine tasting. The interior serves to showcase these events and items.



The interior space (though I personnaly think are beautiful) are not about the architecture but about the wine vats and barrels. The action of housing and sheltering them does not transcend the wine itself.

This comparison is not meant to be judgemental in that positive architecture is bad and negative good (kind of oxymoranic). Architecture does not need to be one another - I believe we as a society do need our symbolic architecture that shouts out its prensence and exists to act out its own purpose for being. And we need architecture that embraces its surroundings and flows from its purpose. Any one structure can be both in some ways.