"negative space" is such a silly term. space is already empty. when you negate it, it should become filled instead of staying empty!
@jn ha, I just listened to this
also "negative" doesn't mean empty. a negative number is as nonzero as a positive one.
@noiob of course negative doesn't mean empty on own, it means turned to the opposite.
but when i think of space, it's empty; when i turn that notion to the opposite, i end up with something filled, non-empty. "negative space" as commonly conceived, however, is still empty.
@noiob ah, trick question, because it's an ambiguous image, representing two different physically possible scenarios.
- if the yellow part is a vase, it's not empty. there's an object there, a vase
- if the black parts are faces, the yellow part is empty
In either case, the empty surfaces match the definition quoted on WP: "[...] negative space is the empty space around and between the subject(s) of an image."
There are two different ways to decompose this image but my initial concerns stand.
@jn I think we should just settle on the correct definition for space, which is "the final frontier"
@noiob that was in the end also the conclusion that i settled on
https://boopsnoot.de/@jn/113958141662040969