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?