For years I’ve been drawn to William Blakes’s work, specifically for inspiring model shoots. What on earth am I thinking? Perhaps this is a universal dilemma for creative people, being inspired by artists that don’t seem to fit your concepts, if anything, they add confusion. Half a dozen times a year the William Blake book comes out for inspiration. I’m left feeling confused, there’s hardly a single image in the book I'd want to turn into a model shoot. Old Testament serious religious shit, not ethereal woman’s portraiture. I need to tackle this head-on before it drives me mad.
When not a single image reflects any direction, I want to emulate, there must be something deeper I’m drawn to. The first line of self-psychotherapy attack comes from one of my out-there photography books “The Zen of Creativity”. How does the image make me feel? The ultimate question in critiquing any form of art.
Blake’s work gives a feeling of god-like figures existing on a barren earth, devoid of man’s touch upon it. There is a distinct lack of anything except sky and rocks. I find the amount of sitting down and awkward poses on the ground jarring and interesting at the same time. Sitting against rocks and trees feels more plausible in a barren universe without stimuli. There’s a feeling of messages or codes within the images that seem aligned with Roman gods rather than anything subtle. The symbolism is obvious, but its meaning is lost.
The other line of attack could be trying to understand Blake’s messages and motivations. This method may not be quite as effective. When I bought this book, I had no concept of what Blake was aiming for. Today I still have no concept of what Blake was aiming towards, this book is very obtuse! I’ve found reading about Blake is so hard that my brains made up its own ideas. I feel Blake had created his own religion. He viewed organised religion as a trap to enslave man. The light of creativity was the true religion that was ruined by the religious laws and dogma of a mad god. I love the idea of this spiritual message and an almost sense of urgency to translate it to art.
Finally, I must remember painting and photography are two very different mediums. I don’t want to add symbolism by means of stuffed owls and plastic snakes. Blakes’s paintings are of the pure creative mind, my photography is grounded in reality. You cannot simply translate a painting into a photoshoot with props and expect it to command any respect. It needs to be funnelled through a lens of cold reality.
