Contrast or harmony? Opposition or mutual penetration? The duality of the real and abstract world is the main theme of this narrative. Where does one end and the other begin? Is the boundary between them rigid or flexible? Perhaps transparent, fluid, or symbolic? Maybe, while being in one, we can observe the other, draw inspiration from it. Rest in it, be inspired by it. Without losing the sense of reality, enriching and expanding it. We do this every day, practicing journeys between the real and the unreal—even thoughts are not tangible, cannot be located in space, yet they are the beginning of the concrete. Language is abstraction, naming an object, not the object itself. The word "dog" does not bark and wag its tail, yet everyone hearing it recreates an image of a dog in their mind, unique to themselves.
The image painted by the artist is always real. It is an object with physical properties. However, the subject is no longer so, and it appeals to the viewer's imagination even when depicting an object with photographic accuracy.
Ada Kamińska's exhibition "Real - Unreal" is divided into two thematic poles. The first relates to the world of nature, while the second decidedly departs from it. In both cases, form speaks more than narrative. Let's try to define the formal differences and reflect on their meaning.
It is visible at first glance. Landscapes are canvases of the same format. They seem small. Interesting, because objectively they are not. However, in comparison with giant abstract canvases, they appear small, fragile, less important. This is a valuable message, defining a hierarchy of values. The world seen is less significant than the one created. We observe it on sketchbook pages, in photo frames, through train windows. The image captured on them is still raw, unprocessed.
Difference in proportions and composition. Landscape proportions are uniform, compositions are horizontal. We are accustomed to such a view of space, looking at the canvases of old masters, the TV screen, the computer monitor. It is ergonomic but also makes the image less attention-grabbing. Similarly, horizontal composition is the least attractive and most static of all. Meanwhile, abstractions rise upward and stretch horizontally, surprising with unusual proportions and dynamic, open composition. It's a different perspective, a different frame, and a new quality.
Landscapes are maintained in neutral shades, rather cool and subdued. Stronger accents are missing. This intentional neutrality is opposed by an explosion of colors in abstract canvases. Strong dominants also appear.
In the case of landscapes, it is slow, analog. This is partly due to the format. There is no room for grandeur. The hand's gesture is stopped, limited. This creates an atmosphere of calmness but also indifference, a lack of engagement. The pace of creating abstractions is much faster, dynamic, color spots are laid freely, with flair, wide gestures. Bold decisions replace hesitation.
Landscapes play a decidedly subordinate role. Their voice is quiet, delicate. It has been subdued so that abstractions can speak more strongly.
Interestingly, in landscapes, the sense of space is negligible. The economy of painterly means makes them flat in perception. Abstractions surprise with the richness of depth resulting from applied contrasts and color explorations, building space using purely painterly means (rubbing, hiding layers under others, etc.).
In summary, the title given to the exhibition takes on a new, ironic meaning. Nothing is as it seems anymore. The sublimation of reality turns out to be more real than its representation. The intensity of the message speaks for it. The power of expression, the courage of decisions, the dizzying pace, depth, rhythm—in one word, pure, unrestrained joy of creation—oppose ordinariness, mediocrity, banality, just as life opposes death.
