I need some help redefining an art term.

[Pixel_Outlaw]

I'm seeking agreement from people with better minds for math than mine...

Recently I've been toying with the artistic term "negative space".

Mathematically it seems to be very off base. I shall explain as best as I can. The term "negative space" in the art world usually refers to empty space around an object. So if you had a vase sitting on a table the "negative space" would be the void surrounding the solid objects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_space

Now correct me if I'm wrong but negative space in the mathematical sense would mean that you take the the distance of each point that defines the vase and multiply by -1 yielding a mirrored object. I think a better term for this artistic notion of "negative space" would be "complimentary space". If we treat the entire picture as a whole the and subtract the vase we get the empty space around the vase or the compliment of the vase.

I just think the notion of empty space used in this way is incorrect and ignorant. It seems the bastard child of a person who lacks the proper terminology. Am I wrong here?

[Shockwave]

I agree, if it appears empty then is shouldnt be callaed negative space, it's just empty space or open space or complimentary space.

If you transform an object into negative co-ordinates then you do indeed get a mirrored object.

[Stonemonkey]

I've no idea if I'm on the right track here but to me the term is not to do with any mathematical concepts but more like considering the space a form fills even though it doesn't physically fill that whole space.

I wouldn't say there's any such thing as negative space mathematically or 3 dimensionally although maybe there is such a thing to people who work with the higher dimensions or something but as far as positive and negative go when dealing with space the origins and the scales used are just a convenience imo.