Blake's and Durer's artwork are two of my favorites.
What I find so teasingly difficult to explain is that despite being so different there is some shared aesthetic value between them that I cannot quite pin down in words.
Perhaps their strong geometric undertones and a certain muscularity in them.
Non-“art first”, cosmological (in the religious sense), sketch-forward detail as principal expressive form… I mean one studied the other right? And the author of this piece wrote about Durer as well
Agree with your observation. Blake and Durer both worked in printmaking. I wonder if the processes and aesthetics there resulted in some detectable affinity between their works.
Those three guys could wipe the floor with most of modern art.
(The Blake painting is tucked away in an almost-attic of the now "Tate Britain" old building in a quiet out of the way street, while the "Tate Modern" blockhouse graces the Thames south bank, mostly filled with glitzy trash. So it goes.)
6 comments
What I find so teasingly difficult to explain is that despite being so different there is some shared aesthetic value between them that I cannot quite pin down in words.
Perhaps their strong geometric undertones and a certain muscularity in them.
Those three guys could wipe the floor with most of modern art.
(The Blake painting is tucked away in an almost-attic of the now "Tate Britain" old building in a quiet out of the way street, while the "Tate Modern" blockhouse graces the Thames south bank, mostly filled with glitzy trash. So it goes.)
The protagonist is William Blake - boards a train to the town of Machine.
The Milton prints, Songs of Innocence, plus the illustrations of the Book of Revelations were pre-Romantic steel engravings.
I regard Blake to be this anti-positivist character in the 19th century.
Anti-Kant, anti-Newton.