6. 10 11
Michel Platnic’s new work draws inspiration from the biblical narrative of the creation of
the world, as recounted in the Book of Genesis. Through pictorial, sculptural, theatrical and
cinematographic means, Platnic creates a sort of one-man-show where he “recreates” the
act of creation. But the artist interprets this story in two parallel directions: from beginning
to end, and conversely from end to beginning. One screen shows the creation narrative as
we know it, whereas the other screen displays the same narrative, yet inversed. Dependence
and interdependence splice the two stories that take place in parallel on a sort of Möbius
strip with no beginning or end. The chronological narrative recounts the creation of nature
followed by man’s use of it, which ends in destruction. The inversed narrative seemingly
savesnaturefromdestruction,yetasitdrawsnearertoitsend(i.e.thebeginning),theworld
gradually empties. Before us are two video screens that tell seemingly opposite stories, yet
both end in the same tone, which may be interpreted either as a despondent end or as the
possibility for a new, hopeful beginning.
The two narrative inversions that Platnic proposes are linear yet looped so as to erase any
beginning or end. The beginning of one story is the end of the other, and vice versa. The act of
creation according to Platnic begins with the expulsion of darkness and the appearance of the
creating god (portrayed by the artist himself) in an empty room, whose panes are all painted
sky blue, with no distinction drawn between wall, floor and ceiling. Thereupon the god creates
his world and populates the empty space through the painting of flora and fauna. The artist
draws a parallel between the biblical god’s speech and the act of painting: God of Genesis
creates through the Verb, by speech, whereas Platnic’s god creates using paint and a brush.
The visual mechanism underlying the work is based upon the shortening and the
distillation of matter, space and time, through the use of different media, symbols and
gestures borrowed from the world of magic. The grand and wonderful acts of the biblical
creation story – as large as the universe itself – are translated here to an intimate scale,
to images both near and familiar: The world is the familial space, the celestial globes are
lamps, the flora are represented by house plants, the fauna by a cat and a bird; it is the
creation of the world and its destruction in a nutshell. The two inversed narratives stand
side by side as though they were two texts on a page that recount and interpret one another,
and vice versa: One expands, the other reduces; one affirms, the other negates; one opens
possibilities, the other shuts them out.
Visual combinations are thus created between the two screens at different points in
time. Associations are triggered, which deviate from the creation narrative yet remain
anchored in the biblical story, in the presence of the god-within-the-world and of the
transcendental movement between heavens and earth. For example, when on the left-
hand screen the god stands alone in the celestial space, preparing himself for the act of
creation, the lugubrious darkness on right-hand screen reveals a figure sleeping beside
a kindled fire – hinting at the story of Jacob’s dream and his epiphany. Later, we see the
identical figures of god on the left-hand screen and man on the right – both portrayed
by the artist. And since the films progress in geometrical opposition, the same situation
naturally inverts itself: Eventually, the figure of god appears on the right-hand screen and
that of man on the left.
The creation of man “in the image of God” is translated by the artist into a self-portrait
painted on the wall. As opposed to the flora and fauna, however, which had been set on
the “ground”, man is set in the space delineating the “sky”. He is depicted in a position of
observation and dominion over the world and all that it contains, as if he himself were God.
Indeed, as the narratives progress, these roles will switch: the “real” figure becomes man,
whereasthepaintedfigureonthewallbecomesGod.Fromthatpointonwards,manshallbe
on his own, deprived of the presence of God, alone responsible for his fate. The vague image
of God, airy and spiritual, shall exist from here onwards in the realm of the skies, observing
the world but never intervening in its doings. Once the act of creation has been completed,
the god leaves the scene through an opening in the wall. This door, created by the god in the
room/world, also serves as a dramaturgical element that the artist/director/creator adds to
the story in order to further the narrative. The opening leads into the unknown, a parallel
world perhaps. It is represented here in warm colors tending towards red, hinting perhaps
that the god’s power to create is replaced by the power of man’s impulse. Indeed man shall
soon step into the room/world and begin to make his mark, figuratively as well as literally.
The inverted version, from end to beginning, beguiles the viewer into believing at first
that its narrative is “positive”, constructive and orderly: The dark room grows lighter, the
figure awakes and begins putting things into order, it rescues a lamp, a plant and other
elements from the fire, the plants grow leaves, etc. Yet at a certain moment, the mistake
becomes apparent and the viewer becomes witness to the methodical erasure of all that
Crack of Dawn
Ilan Wizgan
7. 12 13
biblical myths of creation or the birth of Galatea in Greek mythology (whom Pygmalion
sculpts from clay and Aphrodite breathes life into), or literary works such as the Golem
made of clay, Pinocchio the wooden doll turned by a touch of magic into human boy, and
many more such examples in the cinema of our times.
Early cinema seems to me to be a major source for Platnic’s ideas (and the way in which
he applies them). I would place Platnic’s works on the axis that runs through the films of
Georges Méliès from the end of the 19th century through to the beginning of the 20th
and the contemporary video works of William Kentridge; and within this context, I find
that Genesis – deGenesis brings the artist’s practice to perfection. Méliès, perhaps the most
important and certainly the most prolific of cinema’s pioneers, and a major influence on
canonic figures of cinema such as Buster Keaton, Charlie Chaplin and many others, created
hundreds of short studio films that weave together dream and fantasy using the plastic
means available during his time: painted theatre decors and futuristic mechanical devices.
Films such as La Lune à un mètre (The Astronomer’s Dream, 1898), Le Voyage dans la Lune (A
Trip to the Moon, 1902), and in particular Le Diable noir (The Black Devil, 1905), echo as we
watch Platnic’s present work. The composition is almost identical to that of The Black Devil,
where furniture and accessories appear and disappear through fire and smoke, as if by magic
(Méliès was a magician before being seduced by cinema), and the figure of the Black Devil,
would represent perhaps the antithesis or alter-ego of the Bright God in Platnic’s work.
Echoes to this work can be found also in many video works of Kentridge, particularly
in his ‘Drawing Lessons’ such as Interview for Studio School (2010), his ‘Carnets d’Egypte’
series (2010), or Berlin Memory (2016). In these works, Kentridge makes use of video and
stopmotion,ashedoesinmanyofhisworks(andsodoesPlatnic),butalsoappearsinthem
portraying a double role. He portrays himself as two identical figures, just as Platnic does in
Genesis – deGenesis. And like Platnic’s twin figures, so are Kentridge’s figures characterized
through the dynamics of tension: teacher and student, artist and critic, artist and viewer,
memory versus forgetting. I find similar lines of thought that run through Platnic and
Kentridge regarding the possibilities – and limits – of understanding the world, a sort of
criticism of the Enlightenment period, which promised us liberty and disappointed. Both
also protest against any kind of rigidity, in language and in thought, especially against the
most dangerous kind, that which binds power with self-righteousness.
It is worth noting here two Israeli artists, from two different generations, whose work
relates to Platnic’s: Buky Schwartz and Guy Ben-Ner. Schwarz, a pioneer of video art not
only in Israel but worldwide, created in the 1970’s trompe l’œil compositions through the
manipulationofspace.Usingatfirstsculpturalelementsandmirrors,Schwartzlaterworked
with video cameras and made use of their lenses’ “blind” depth of field. His early video
works – initial experimentations with a new medium – are at one end of the scale, whereas
Platnic’s works are at the other. Platnic makes subtle use of this now ripened medium that
“is” in the room, until utter void and chaos. For two sustained moments in the video, in the
middle of the Möbius strip and at its two extremities, the two inversed narratives touch.
These are the only moments in the work where the two screens are completely identical.
These are also the only moments where neither god nor man is present in Platnic’s
metaphorical world. One is an idyllic moment where nature celebrates its perfect being, a
paradise where no man exists to sin and thus no divine, punishing voice paces the garden;
and another moment, of utter void – the Great Deep. These two opposed situations that
the artist constructs echo the principle of choice and personal responsibility, perhaps the
central principle underlying the Pentateuch: starting with Genesis – the Tree of Life and
the Tree of Knowledge, Good and Bad – through to Deuteronomy: “See, I have set before
thee this day life and good, and death and evil... therefore choose life”.
In Platnic’s works, the pictorial language joins the cinematographic and theatrical to
form a new and unique mode of expression. His work Genesis – deGenesis links the video
works of After (based on paintings of Francis Bacon) with works from the past two years
that deal with constitutive texts and events of Western civilization. The series based on
Bacon is perhaps most closely associated with Platnic’s oeuvre, in which the artist examines
the space between 2D and 3D and where the painted can at any given moment come to
life and begin to move. The viewer finds himself in the realms of fantasy and dream. I am
reminded of scenes from fantasy and romance films where mannequins leave their window
displays and interact with human beings, or films whose characters abandon the two-
dimensional screen in favor of “real life”. This magical act, of breathing life into a figure made
of matter, recurs throughout the generations of human civilization, whether through the
After Three Studies for a Portrait of John Edwards, 1984, 2013
2013 ,1984 ,אדוארדס ג'ון לדיוקן מתווים שלושה בעקבות
8. 14 15
since the people does not really know what is good and just as it chooses its representatives,
who in turn abuse their power and corrupt it for their own good. Plato proposed a polis
based on class differences as his ideal model. The people would concede its right to vote
in favor of the philosophers’ rule, who possess the knowledge, wisdom and experience
necessary to rule justly. Platnic does not take a stand for or against Plato’s suggestion, but
rather makes use of the text due to its fundamental status in Western civilization, much
like that of the biblical creation narrative. He extricates from it the characteristic Western
terminology that still shapes our understanding of the world and the constructs of our
society, and opposes to it images from the natural world.
In light of Republica, as well as through Well-Tempered (produced a year earlier and
which deals with the standardization of concepts and of thought through the contrasting
of Western core terminology with iconic images and events of our times), it appears that
Platnic’s interest lies in the individual who, facing the world or authority, is not aware
of his power and his responsibility. He is the prisoner of a language and a culture that
conceptualize a priori his ways of observing and understanding the world, that rigidify
certain possibilities and exclude others. He is condemned to a fragmentary, culture-
dependent understanding of the world, only ever seeing bits of the bigger picture. He
is unable to make use of all of the accumulated knowledge in the world, knowledge that
once bore the promise of freedom of thought. Knowledge contains the potential for
destruction. Knowledge is power, and as such must be accompanied by responsibility.
The double projection of possibilities that Platnic proposes side by side in the present
work emphasizes the idea that man destroys the act of creation. Or indeed, that the two
figures, who are one, build with one hand and destroy with the other.
Well-Tempered, 2015, video installation
וידיאו מיצב ,2015 ,Well-Tempered
is at the forefront of contemporary art. As for Ben-Ner, his practice of recounting stories
is similar to Platnic’s. In his video Moby Dick (2000), for example, Ben-Ner reduces and
reproduces the famous novel in his home kitchen, portraying all the roles himself (with the
exception of a deck boy, portrayed by his daughter). There too, kitchen accessories serve to
play out the novel’s various scenes, and purposefully transparent editing tricks are used in
transforming the characters. But Ben-Ner and Platnic differ in their intentions and in their
narrative techniques. Humor is an essential element for Ben-Ner, and his references contain
slapstick films and cartoon gags, whereas Platnic’s work is restrained, often meditative,
contemplative, and in recent times politically engaged.
When Platnic reproduces paintings in video, he performs a double simulacrum: Bacon
represented figures from life, and Platnic in turn represents Bacon’s representations,
thus bringing to life the “original” ones. To be precise, Platnic only reproduces Bacon’s
perspective and focal points, but not the reality that Bacon tried to represent. Platnic joins
here in the distinction that Plato drew between two types of representation – two types
of simulacra. The first is faithful to reality, attempting to represent it as it is, and the other
distorts reality so that it appear correctly from the spectator’s point of view. Just as the
Greek artists of Antiquity – in Plato’s example – designed large sculptures to be wider at the
top than at the bottom (thus correcting perspective as seen from the ground), so too Platnic
uses distorted, diagonal decor for his video works. Only thus will the scene correspond to
the referenced painting, from the spectator’s perspective.
It is not by chance that I refer to Plato. Previous to the present work, Platnic created
a video installation based on Plato’s Republic, entitled Republica. As is well known, the
philosopher critiques Athenian democracy by claiming that democracy leads to tyranny,
Republica, 2016, video installation
וידיאו מיצב ,2016 ,רפובליקה
9. 16 17
Preparation sketches, 2016, ink and watercolor on paper, 30x21 each
כ“א 30x21 ,נייר על מים וצבעי דיו ,2016 ,הכנה רישומי
10. 18 19
Video frames from Genesis – deGenesis, 2017
2017 ,לבראשית מראשית הווידאו עבודת מתוך פריימים
Tests before filming, 2016
2016 ,צילומים לפני ניסיונות
12. Construction of the space for filming, 2016
2016 ,צילום לקראת ,החלל בניית
Study for Genesis, 2016, ink and watercolor on paper, 29.9x42
29.9x42 ,נייר על מים וצבעי דיו ,2016 ,לבראשית מתווה
13. Tests before filming, 2016
2016 ,צילומים לפני ניסיונות
Study for Genesis, 2016, ink and watercolor on paper, 29.9x42
29.9x42 ,נייר על מים וצבעי דיו ,2016 ,לבראשית מתווה
14. Painted cardboard accessory for filming, 2016
2016 ,קרטון על ציור ,לצילומים אביזר
Tests before filming, 2016
2016 ,צילומים לפני ניסיונות
Study for Genesis storyboard, 2016,
ink and watercolor on paper, 29.9x42
2016 ,בתמונות תרחיש לבראשית מתווה
29.9x42 ,נייר על מים וצבעי דיו
15. 3D simulation of completed space, 2016
2016 ,הבנוי לחלל תלת־מימדית הדמיה
Study for Genesis storyboard, 2016,
ink and watercolor on paper, 29.9x42
,2016 ,בתמונות תרחיש לבראשית מתווה
29.9x42 ,נייר על מים וצבעי דיו
16. Rehearsal before filming, 2016
2016 ,צילומים לפני חזרות
Study for storyboard, 2016,
ink and watercolor on paper, 29.9x42
,2016 ,בתמונות תרחיש לבראשית מתווה
29.9x42 ,נייר על מים וצבעי דיו
17. During filming, 2016
2016 ,הצילומים בזמן
During filming, 2016
2016 ,הצילומים בזמן
Study for Genesis storyboard, 2016,
ink and watercolor on paper, 29.9x42
,2016 ,בתמונות תרחיש לבראשית מתווה
29.9x42 ,נייר על מים וצבעי דיו
37. 72 73
Biographical Notes
Born in France in 1970
Moved to Israel in 1998
Lives and works between Tel Aviv and Berlin since 2014
Studies and Grants
2015–2017 − Post-M.A. studies, Art and Media Meisterschüler at Universität der Künste
(post-M.A.), Berlin
2010 − Beit Berl Grant for Excellence in Art
− Shpilman Grant for Excellence in Photography
2007–2010 − B.Ed. studies at Hamidrasha School of Art, Beit Berl College, Israel (with honors)
2005–2007 − Fine art studies at Sadnat Omanei Hakibutzim and Universita Amamit, Israel
2001–2004 − Acting studies at Yoram Levinstein Acting Studio and Theatron Hagouf, Israel
1989–1994 − M.Sc. in Engineering at Ecole Supérieure d’Ingénieurs en Electronique
et Electrotechnique, France
Selected Solo Exhibitions and Performances
2017 − "Genesis," Gordon Gallery, Tel Aviv (cat.)
− "Ostinato," sound performance, Spektrum, Berlin
2015 − "Sphères 8," "Well-Tempered," Galleria Continua, Boissy-le-Châtel, France
− "After," International Biennale "Fashion and Style in Photography",
Manege Museum, Moscow
− "After," Art Plural Gallery, Singapore
− "After," Art Stage Art Fair, Singapore
2014 − "After," The Open Museum of Photography, Tel-Hai, Israel (cat.)
− "After," Gordon Gallery, Tel Aviv
2013 − "After Bacon," Fresh Paint Art Fair, Tel Aviv
− "Body Left Hanging," performance, Minshar, Tel Aviv
2012 − "Good Enough Death," Haifa Museum
− "Study of Bacon’s Portrait," performance, Beit Kaner, Municipal
Art Gallery, Rishon Lezion
2011 − "Potential Space," Museum of Israeli Art, Ramat Gan
− "Ein-Sof," video installation and performance, Bible Lands Museum, Jerusalem
2010 − "Twilight," ST-ART residency, Jaffa
− "Oz in the city," performance, Halalit Gallery, Tel Aviv
− "Profane," performance, Alfred Gallery, Tel Aviv
− "Menorah," performance, ST-ART residency, Jaffa
Selected Group Exhibitions
2017 − "The Human Condition," A38 Gallery, Budapest
− "Repositioning," The Museum for Islamic Art, Jerusalem (cat.)
− "Israeli Contemporary Art," National Academy of Arts, Kiev
− "Ictus*," performance with Dan Allon, Circle1, Berlin
2016 − "Hadvir," Alfred Gallery, Tel Aviv
− International Photography Festival, ST-ART Gallery, Tel Aviv
2015 − Changjiang Biennale of Photo & Video, Changjiang Museum
of Contemporary Art, China
− "I Live in the East but my Heart is in the West," Pasinger Fabrik, Munich
− "Art-sistence," Musrara, Jerusalem
2014 − "Small Step to the South," Gutman Museum, Tel Aviv
− "Becoming," Hansen House, Jerusalem (cat.)
2013 − "Window Project," Gazelli Art House, London
− "Two Years Later," Museum of Israeli Art, Ramat Gan (cat.)
− "BYOBeamer," video performance, Golconda Gallery, Tel Aviv
2012 − "Painting etc.," Beit Kaner, Municipal Art Gallery, Rishon Lezion (cat.)
− "Young Masters," Art Rotterdam 2012, Rotterdam
− "Machol," performance with Elad Shniderman, Haifa Museum
− "Time/Zones," video performance, Center for Contemporary Art (CCA), Tel Aviv
2011 − "Facelook," Tel Aviv Museum of Art, Tel Aviv
− "Pixelpops," TPTP Gallery, Paris
− "Salon Yafo of Photography," Hangar 2, Jaffa
− "Venice: Memoire," Zemack Gallery, Tel Aviv
− "Action Photography," Dan Gallery, Tel Aviv
− "Today Only," Center for Contemporary Art, Tel Aviv
− "Story Slam," Kishon Gallery, Tel Aviv
2010 − "Ether," Hanina Gallery, Tel Aviv
− "Obscurity," FusionArts Museum, New York (cat.)
− "Young Israeli Artists," Artik, Antverpen
− "Fresh Paint Art Fair," Tel Aviv
− "Israelism," Shay Arye Gallery, Tel Aviv