Muujun.

Here’s a few examples of some very very interesting architecture degree work from Ajmir Kandola (although like me, some of you probably just know him as mø).
The project is titled ‘Ontology, Space and the Architectural Drawing’ and is very much about:

(as quoted from Ajmir)

The disparity between space on a drawing and space behind an architectural drawing lead me to explore this field through various drawing techniques. I explored the architectural and ontological term ‘spatiality’ through the two dimensional drawing, with the eventual outcome of extruding the process into a three-dimensional entity.

I think from reading the essay excerpts below, and then looking through the images, you can really get a sense of depth as well as a general feeling of space and distance. Whilst being fully aware that it is still a 2D image, which I think is something quite difficult to capture, but he’s succeeded with distinction in my eyes.
(I won’t talk about it too much because something like this is a bit beyond my artistic talent, understanding it is difficult enough for me sometimes, let alone explaining it).
I don’t really want to post up a load of thumbnails here for you to look at, as I feel you really need to view the full series in order to appreciate the full work, but here’s a few samples anyway.

I’ve also got a few excerpts from the essay that I did pinch from the Virus B-23 website (sorry Henry!)

Spatiality references this three-stage relationship of thought, thinking and reality in an architectural drawing - thought and thinking are two distinct entities, and reality is their poetic embodiment. References that relate to universal entities or objects that are understood through attributes and connotations of these entities or objects will try to assert and fuel the discussion of space in a drawing. The references to other ‘somethings’ such as objects, attributes to objects, metaphors relating to objects, all aid the communication of an architectural creation. Distinction implies that thinking and thought share the same reference field, but are different as ontological entities, separation of context of thought and reality implies they exist in different fields of ontology. This, as discussed previously in the relationship between mind and matter, express simultaneously the properties of an architectural drawing. The notion of absolute negative space arises from the inability to describe unoccupied territory as a distinct architectural space because of the lack of context - it is a separate space belonging to a different ontological field of reference. Absolute negative space describes that which is not referenced in architectural depiction of a particular architecture due to the nature of the relationship between ontology and space. Regions in an architectural drawing that have not been tackled fully by considering the substances and their spatiality in relation to distinct entities of an architecture, and the organisation of mind – matter against the differences in fields of reference all fall into this category, particularly when and if there is no direct point of reference to matter or composition and non-presence are further explored in the series ‘Wounds 1-7’. Therefore the exploration of distinct entities in an architectural drawing examines the differences between inhabited and uninhabited territories that share fields of references relating to overlapping ontological stances.

The series of ‘Wound’ drawings attempt to discuss purely the notion of absolute negative space. The drawings in the series ‘Wound’ were conducted in quick succession using water drawn on paper, with the boundary between wet and dry marked with the squeezing of a pipette full of a mixture of Indian ink and scented Chinese calligraphy ink. The drawings are in only two dimensions, and discuss the boundary of objects in three dimensional space analysed and reduced by the eye into pure distinctions between ‘something’ and ‘something else’. The irrelevance of perspectival focus on the depiction of object is an outcome of this pure distinction between objects sharing the same ontological reference field. In analysing the purity of distinction of objects through the use of ink, the idea of difference of fields between objects conveys their qualities in depiction. The objects portrayed are different objects, however in depicting them in the same fashion show they share the same notion of ‘field’. The absolute negative space (in this instance captured by the slit) is the central wound left untouched by paint or pipette. This is the differentiation between unoccupied territory and inhabited/uninhabited space and their portrayal as separate entities in the same drawing. When thinking of this image diagrammatically, the absolute negative space is a region that is not possible to discuss on two planes, or perhaps in only the realm of metaphysics, and is left to assumption. That is, this space does not affect the quality or interrelation of composition, but still must be shown as a concern in the drawing. It must be shown because it gives the study of difference of fields a location in the sense that unmarked and space beyond is relevant, but not necessary for consideration in depicting objects. Overlaid are lines drawn by pen anchored four points relating to the quadrate, and the preoccupation of the architectural drawing to move towards the Cartesian notion of drawing. There are also three nodes drawn in absolute negative space, which are a means of discussing the objects’ meta-fields in connection with uncharted space. This can be analogised as the eye travelling over the drawing, and the concern for the way the eye travels over the drawing.

Finally the best bit of the lot is that you can view the entire set of prints, sketches and digital work Here.

Looking forward to whatever the next peice of work Ajmir is working on, apparently it’s something to do with a city wide wifi network and a ‘giant’ midi controller, which could be very exciting and refreshing indeed I think.