(excerpts from the forthcoming book Revealer of the Fourfold Secret:
William Blake’s Theory and Practice of Vision)
By using a significant number of technique invariants, as well as certain patterns of representation, Blake’s pictorial works of art are metamorphosed into a more conservative mode of expression, reminiscent of the repetitive code embedded in the verbal works of art by the linguistic medium. Moreover, in my opinion, it is the technical-representative dimension which ensures the visionary character of Blake’s paintings and engravings; one can scarcely define the artist’s visual means of communication in the absence of the aforementioned twofold aspect.
Dealing with the problematic of Blake’s illuminated manuscripts, Viscomi synthesizes the evolution of Blake’s artistic technique: ‘The first six years of production progressed through a series of three formats: leaves printed on both sides and lightly washed (1789-93), color printing (1794-95), and single-sided printing with borders and richer coloring (c. 1795). After 1795, the format remained the same . . . ’ (60).
Raymond Lister too focuses his discourse on the Blakean technique of printing, emphasizing the aquatint-like effect which, quite unexpectedly, it seems, the process brought about. His observation is important because it can be partly applied to the artist’s illuminated manuscripts: ‘The technique of transferring the design to the paper in a press imparted a rich granulated effect, reminiscent of aquatint; this feature is characteristic of much of Blake’s colour-printing and is present also on some pages in his illuminated books which were sometimes similarly coloured’ (13).
Dabundo’s Encyclopedia of Romanticism offers a detailed description of Blake’s method of relief etching, holding that the artist’s technique is in stark contrast to the intaglio relief technique, as a traditional craft. Further important, albeit technical, details are furnished, so that her demonstration may be complete: ‘In Blake’s method of relief etching, he applied a ground only to the areas of the copper plate where the actual lines of the design would emerge from the surface of the plate. Text and design are painted on the plate using a solution impervious to acid’ (60).
According to Stewart Crehan, who analyses in an excellent manner the chief characteristics of Blakean art, the painter’s lighting is invariably frontal, adding that this and the elimination of a background help ‘to foreground [italics in the original] everything in the picture, reducing physical volume, distance and depth, and bringing everything up close to the viewer’s eyes’ (253). He notes subsequently that ‘[t]he “flashlight” effect creates a “thisness” or permanence, a kind of instantaneous, eternal present [italics in the original] . . . ’ (253). Finally, Crehan points out that ‘[t]he illusion of a transparently objective reality is hence replaced by another illusion, that of a world of universal, permanent and ideal forms . . .’ (267), simultaneously underlining that, as a linearist (following Dürer, Raphael, and Michelangelo), Blake revolts against Brunelleschi’s and Uccello’s illusionism.
Blake’s paintings are defined, in my opinion, by an ascensional craving: characters frequently appear in the guise of dancers whose primordial element is air, and whose only obsessive goal is reaching the above. This contributes decisively to the visionary character of his pictorial works of art, in that it succeeds in establishing a communication between the transcendental and the transcendent, between the world of contingency and that of Eternity – the depicted heroes essay to leave the ground just as Blake’s geniuses conquer their limited perceptions and exercise them with a view to attaining the ultimate degree of vision. I should also point out that Blake’s paintings as representations of visions are set in contrast with Joshua Reynolds’s, the latter urging his contemporaries to ‘beautify’ the heroes in art, so as to instil a feeling of sublime in the audience. Nevertheless, this desideratum is not matched by a radical aesthetic stance, but by a moderate, bourgeois telos, educational in nature and limited in scope to moral exemplarity. Blake, in his turn, has no need for character-modification: he claims that he renders them as close to the reality of his visions as humanly possible.
In the end, as Damrosch, Jr. notes, Blake’s pictures ‘are “read” in traditional pictorial terms, and the problems of interpretation which they raise are less radical than those of Blake’s language and form’ (349), which implies that it is his literary work which must be looked into more carefully. However, all these examples show that, although ‘read’ in traditional terms, Blake’s visual works of art bring into focus a significant number of original elements which may enable one to interpret them in the light of the artist’s verbal mode of representation, and under the auspices of visionary construction. Blake’s creative process and his manner of expression cannot be accounted for satisfactorily in the absence of a brief pictorial analysis. It must also be remembered Blake’s works are somehow interconnected, and that a key to one automatically provides a key to another. Saree Makdisi is a case in point when he advises that ‘[…] if we try to read one of the illuminated books as a self-contained object, we will almost inevitably be frustrated. We will have greater success if we try to read it as a part of a virtual network of relations that opens away from it and undermines its autonomy’ (130). Concurrently, he adds the ‘principle of iterability and repetition’ (simultaneously technical and hermeneutic in form) to the critical equation: ‘The figural reiteration of images between works in Blake is inextricably related to the material reiteration of images among versions of the “same work”’ (129). Up to a certain degree, this reinforces my idea, inspired by Goodman’s distinction between descriptions and depictions, that verbal and visual representations are brought together, each borrowing certain modes of expression from the other. Only if Blake’s books are ‘read’ in toto can they be properly reflected upon and comprehended, without thereby subverting their visionary message.
 See, inter alia, Blake’s famous representation of the Last Judgment.
 Perhaps this universally appealing feature has made Blake’s visual art so popular outside Europe, and I refer specifically to Japan. For the Shirakaba Group’s enthusiastic reception of Blake’s paintings and engravings, see Yumiko Goto passim.
 As David V. Erdman notes, ‘certainly the poems can stand alone, while many of the pictures cannot’ (Illuminated Blake 10).
Blake, William. The Complete Poetry and Prose of William Blake. 1965. Ed. David V. Erdman. Commentary Harold Bloom. Newly revised ed. Garden City, NY: Anchor/Doubleday, 1982.
—. Complete Writings, with Variant Readings. 1957. Ed. Geoffrey Keynes, Oxford: Oxford UP, 1979.
—. The Illuminated Blake. Annotated David V. Erdman. London: Oxford UP, 1975.
Clark, Steve and Masashi Suzuki, eds. The Reception of Blake in the Orient. London: Continuum, 2006.
Crehan, Stewart. Blake in Context. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1984.
Dabundo, Laura, ed. Encyclopedia of Romanticism: Culture in Britain, 1780s-1830s. New York and London: Garland, 1992.
Damrosch, Leopold, Jr. Symbol and Truth in Blake’s Myth. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton UP, 1980.
Eaves, Morris, ed. The Cambridge Companion to William Blake. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2003.
Goto, Yumiko. ‘Individuality and Expression: The Shirakaba Group’s Reception of Blake’s Visual Art in Japan.’ The Reception of Blake in the Orient. Ed. Steve Clark and Masashi Suzuki. London: Continuum, 2006. 216-3.
Lister, Raymond. The Paintings of William Blake. Cambridge, London, New York, New Rochelle, Melbourne, and Sydney: Cambridge UP, 1986.
Makdisi, Saree. ‘The Political Aesthetic of Blake’s Image.’ The Cambridge Companion to William Blake. Ed. Morris Eaves. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2003. 110-32.
Viscomi, Joseph. ‘Illuminated Printing.’ The Cambridge Companion to William Blake. Ed. Morris Eaves. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2003. 37-6.