William Blake was a late 18th and early 19th century poet, illustrator, and printer whose works represented visions he recieved from the almighty. These visions, which he reportedly recieve from God when he was a child, where translated into some of the most interesting works of art and liturature. Blake and his wife labor long and hard to brings his illustrations to life, many painted by hand. He printed his own work and sold it to the public at moderate prices.



By selling his works at prices that the average middle to upper class persons can afford, he created a perfect marketing tool to get his works into the public eye. This stratagy work for and againist him in the end. Most of public opinion beleived him to be a crackpot and he died a pennyless. But like so many in his profession his works live on. His beautiful illustrations are colorfull and full of charactor. But can they be considered "fine art"? This is a hard question to ponder.



One can argue that yes they can be considered fine art. The skill and imagination that William Blake put into each piece of art is remarkable. Each piece could easily be considered a masterpiece in itself. But are they really fine art?



Looking at just a few of the Blake's many prints, I believe that they are more illustrations than fine art. To me they look more like cartoon illustrations instead of fine art. Close examination of the face in Blakes "Neibuchadnezzar" looks more like a cartoon character. Blakes "Glad Day" character looks more like a naked superman. These and other Blake illustration fits more for picture to complement his poems than art that can stand alone.

I believe that William Blake was one of the great early illustrators. His watercolors adds a touch of beauty to his poems (sometimes in a morbid way). His visions helped to move the art of illustration into the modern era and created a living legacy.