Qui non fa male
-
-
-
„i‘ve never done that before“
„you look so good“
this is just so pure
-
-
I think that for their physics presentation Fatou and Kieu My are going To end up stargazing and making sweet love under the sky
-
-
This is one of the best lesbian movies i’ve seen and it’s a fricking car commercial
Chills
Everywhere
Chills and a little bit of dust in my eye. Wow. Beautiful.
This 👏🏻 I want this and wow this 👏🏻 was beautiful!!
was this close to straight-up crying.
(via youwontcatchmealive)
-
-
-
I’m looking into the inktober drama and.
I’m going to need people to chill out kind of a lot.
I’m writing a much, much longer thing about this and I wouldn’t make a deal out of it but Dunn is VERY much making a big deal out of the fact that these two layouts are the same and as someone who is a page designer let me tell you, these layouts are NOT THE SAME.
Do both feature text and illustrations of pens? Yes!
Are the pens illustrated at angles? Yes!
The paragraph structure, spacing, and visual lines of the page are completely different though. (For instance, you may notice, one of these pages has illustrations on either side of the text and one of these pages has one column of text and one column of illustrations, which is pretty dang different).
Also look at how fucking HEAVY the text is on Dunn’s page. There is a visual weight to it that the Parker page just does not have. These are not the same layout.
Also. He’s going on about stolen layouts and.
One of these books is a square. One of these books is a rectangle. It’s really, really hard to accurately translate layouts across those shapes and from what I’ve seen of Parker’s book it is VERY horizontal, which would just not be possible if he were ripping off layouts from Dunn’s book.
Also I’ve found at least four other art books with illustrations of the tools you’re supposed to use and I found one that did this exact same concept in a section called “pens and penholders” instead of “materials” in a book published in 1915.
Wait hold up:
Its layout theft? Not images, drawings, or text; its layout theft, specifically?
That’s not a thing I can muster any real energy to even begin to care about. Like yeah theoretically layout design also takes effort and work, and its wrong to pass off someone else’s work as your own but, c'mon man. There are limited possible layouts, theres bound to be a lot of reuse of other peoples ideas.
Layout theft is a PART of it.
There’s one image he kind of claims is art theft (so far; I’m not all the way through the video) but it’s the sort of incredibly basic tutorial/warmup drawing that everyone does that I could probably find five of the exact same thing in my old sketchbooks.
There’s SOME discussion of text theft but that’s one of those things that’s REALLY hard to claim when you’re writing a book about fundamentals - you don’t REALLY get to get pissy about someone describing “contour” as “lines around a form” because that’s just what the definition of contour is.
He’s also got some issues with sequencing that are maybe a little legitimate but, again, if you write a fundamentals book there’s some stuff that’s going to naturally go in sequence.
If I opened up a book about the fundamentals about skateboarding I’d expect to find the anatomy of a skateboard, maybe the history of skateboarding, what you need to skateboard, and then I’d expect the book to move on to stance/foot position. It would not be AT ALL surprising if multiple books had a chapter that was called “Foot Position” or a section called “Helmet Types.”
I mean. Dunn is claiming plagarism because two books about ink drawing both have a page called “additional supplies” and both list “fingers” and “sponges” under a section about unconventional inking.
He just went on for five minutes about how hard layout is and how he rejected three different layouts for this page and spent a ton of time worrying about the spacing and I find that REMARKABLE because the spacing and layout of those pages is SO different.
@thatqueerweirdo said:
Wasn’t there already a controversy where the creator of inktober tried to copyright the term and started issuing takedowns on people selling the artwork they made during inktober? I feel that one is both much more credible and much more worrying than copying a layout
OKAY so I yelled about this last year too.
Jake Parker copyrighted the word Inktober and the Inktober logo that he created. He has asked people not to sell their inktober sketchbooks with “Inktober” in the primary title but he says it’s okay in the subtitle. He doesn’t want people selling merch with the inktober logo he created on it.
INITIALLY what happened was that some people who had sketchbooks with Inktober in the main title got C&Ds from his lawyers without being contacted in any other way, but from what I’ve been able to tell nobody has had work taken down and the people who got C&Ds don’t seem to have said much past the initial panicked announcement.
But as soon as there was an announcement people were claiming that Parker was preventing ANYBODY from selling their Inktober sketches or using the word Inktober to describe any sale item or whatever and that is absolutely not what happened - people were claiming that he was going to try to copyright their art because it was tagged Inktober. People need to chill.
Inktober is a sponsored event, Parker runs it and creates art for it and has website hosting for it. Parker could *in theory* do this out of the good of his own heart and pay out of his own pocket but he does already put up a ton of free art resources that he absolutely doesn’t have to - I do not have a problem with a creator wanting some exclusivity on the merchandising for an event that he created.
He wants to be able to sell books with the “Inktober” title and have it be clear to consumers that this is officially aligned with the sponsored event that he created; he doesn’t want someone doing a 31-day collection of Hitler pinups, calling it Inktober 2020, and have parents who go googling for what this event is to think that’s an official part of the event. He wants to be able to send takedown notices to those auto-generated tee shirt companies that sell whatever merch someone says “I wish there was a shirt of this” about on twitter.
I do not particularly LIKE copyright but we’re talking about a living artist who created an event within the last fifteen years wanting to be able to control that event’s image and sell things under that event’s name. There are a lot of people who seem unhappy about that, and who seem to be saying “but that’s not what inktober’s about” or “the term inktober has been in public use enough that it can’t be constrained” and I call bullshit. Parker created it, he can say what it’s about and if you don’t like it you can do a different event. If the lady who created Spoon Theory can send takedowns to Etsy stores for selling “no more spoons” bracelets (and on her website she is VERY CLEAR that she doesn’t want people reproducing her terminology ANYWHERE) then Parker can say “Please don’t give your book the literal title of the event that I created or use the logo that I hand drew for the event to make money.”
And, like, this is one that’s really weird to me too because you’re seeing people saying this who are in many cases the SAME people who talk about not appropriating AAVE and how Peaches Monroee should get a percentage of every tee shirt that has the words “on fleek” on it.
Like, look. I go to 2600 meetings (when meetings are happening). I’ve been part of LA2600 for fifteen years. But if LA 2600 started putting out newsletter and calling it 2600, the hacker quarterly, then I bet the people who make 2600 magazine would be pretty (rightfully) pissed EVEN THOUGH 2600 meetings have been free to create and open access and decentralized globally for thirty-plus years. They’re still the ones who created the magazine; the individual 2600 groups run meetings in the same spirit as the magazine but we didn’t *create* the thing and if we were selling shirts as 2600 with no further context it would at least be UNDERSTANDABLE to me if the editorial board of the magazine was like “wait, no, shit, that’s our brand.”
Living artists/modern entities are where I think IP law/copyright protection actually DOES make sense and it’s VERY weird to me that people keep trying to divorce Inktober, a thing RECENTLY created by a person who puts a ton of work into it annual, from the person who is still actively running it and creating for it.
OKAY. HERE WE GO. This is basically a watch-along response to Dunn’s video.
Cowabunga.
“I used two – three – examples here and he just copied both of them without even changing them that much” – about 5 minutes into the video, first shown example of plagiarism.
Parker and Dunn both use ovals and squares to show texture (which Juliana Kunstler did in 2012, using the same circular and hairy textures too).
Nothing on the page preceding or on the rest of the page matches (Parker has shiny objects; these illustrations are then followed by rock, wood, and brick textures) except that Parker notes “follows form” under his illustration of texture and the header of Dunn’s next page is “texture follows form” – which is, incidentally a phrase so common to art that there is an entire 2012 art installation called “Texture Follows Form” and Kunstler’s Elements of Art discusses texture following the shape of an object in her introductory slides on texture.
“Scale texture, bumpy texture, fur texture” about 7 minutes into the video, second claim of plagiarism.
Both artists have a page showing textures impacted by light and form; Dunn’s has four examples, Parker’s has three; Dunn’s are drawn as squares in different values amid other pages of texture, Parker’s are drawn as cubes showing how lighting on a shape impacts the way the texture is drawn. Dunn then scrolls four pages away to show the textures on cubes.
For the record, here is Parker’s page: https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/916YQE3eWVL.jpg
“Control, application, basic strokes, variation, consistency” – 8:40
Dunn claims that this is a plagiarism of the structure of the second chapter of his book, “Strokes.”
He says that is the exact format.
Please note that the format shown in Parker’s IG post is as follows, and that it’s page 38 of the book:
- Control – how to hold the pen and lay down a stroke
- Basic Strokes – the marks you make on paper
- Consistency – [illegible]
- Variation – adding just enough difference to your marks in order to make them interesting and visually appealing
- Application – how and when to use different skills
Dunn’s format is as follows:
- Effective Pen Control
- Basic Types of Strokes
- Ways to Vary a Stroke
- Ways to use a stroke [“how you apply a stroke” is said out loud, not listed in the chapter headers]
Dunn notes that Parker doesn’t use the word “strokes” because “that would be a dead giveaway”; Parker uses the word “marks” throughout this page. Dunn says he uses “lines” which I can’t actually see on this page (Parker uses “lines” in a header in a different part of the book). Dunn then points out that he also covered consistency, but it was in a different chapter. (just. just pointing out here that if you have one section that isn’t there and he has one that is you can’t call it the “exact” same structure but whatever.)
Dunn moves on to the next image from Parker’s IG, which lists the five applications as:
- Contour
- Form
- Local Values
- Light and Shadow
- Textures
And is page 68 of his book (30 pages of a 160 page book away from his discussion of five fundamental mark-making skills).
Dunn calls these the five ways to use a stroke and they appear in the strokes chapter (page 30; the chapter on Strokes goes from page 20 to page 34). They are listed as:
- Shading
- Outline
- Texture
- Cross contour
- Local value
Dunn gets really upset about Parker’s use of “contour” to define a shape but here’s a webpage from 2001 doing the same thing: https://web.archive.org/web/20200219224119/http://www1.udel.edu/artfoundations/drawing/crosscontour.html
- “Solo lines can be used to indicate a shaped form by wrapping the line around the form” – Parker describing form
- “It’s about how we use lines to accentuate the curvature of the form, how you make it 3 dimensional” – Dunn, paraphrasing his book
- “While contour lines describe edges, cross-contours describe form and volume. These lines can follow planes of form, moving around and across objects as well as through them.” – University of Delaware in 2001
Again, this is also 30 pages away from Parker’s discussion of mark-making but within Dunn’s book it’s in the same chapter. Not the same structure.
Texture, Form, and Value
At 15 minutes Dunn moves on to a page that Parker has titled “render” in his book that describes how to, well, render a drawing after you’ve constructed the basic structure. Dunn moves to his Texture chapter and points out that he has a page about texture, form, and value.
I just. I have to point out that there are only so many things that are called the fundamental elements of art and it’s usually a list of seven things and those seven things are listed by Wikipedia as: Line, Shape, Texture, Form, Space, Color, and Value. Since from the screenshot you can see that Parker’s previous page has covered Shape and Space (the previous page, 100, is titled “structure” and the drawings are labelled “volume” and “ground plane”) there are only so many other fundamentals to cover in the following page and in a book about black and white ink drawing “color” isn’t going to be one of them.
Also, I have to point this out; Dunn says that he knows that the first image on the page is Form because that’s what it is in his book and it MUST be form even though he can’t see what it’s titled the final letter of the title of that drawing IS somewhat visible and it doesn’t look like the “M” you can see in “volume” in the opposing page; suspect that THIS drawing is actually titled “line” because it’s a clean line drawing with no pencil marks.
At 19 minutes Dunn begins discussing the flip-through in depth and says that he immediately recognized the same layout from his book.
First of all, as a layout designer, no. Parker’s book is a strong square shape that frequently uses a two-column text structure with a strong central header and images that often float around the periphery of the page. Dunn’s book uses more single-column text with images on their own pages or surrounded by short paragraphs that points out elements of the illustrations.
Dunn may mean “order” or he may mean “spread” but it is not the same LAYOUT.
He moves on to discussing the spread in question, which is a page of materials featuring illustrations of the materials. Parker’s book has two columns of illustration with short paragraphs in the middle describing the drawings; Dunn’s book has one column of drawings and one of text. He insists that Parker is using the same layout design (he is not). He says that he included a quill and a reed and a dip pen and Parker has a quill and a dip but must have left out a reed because it would be too obvious.
I found an example from a drawing guide from 1915 that illustrated different kinds of pens including quill, reed, and dip pens. It didn’t include ballpoint pens because ballpoint pens hadn’t been invented by then but the technique of drawing the history of pens alongside illustrations of useful drawing tools HAD been.
He is really, really hammering on about this being the same page layout and again, it is really, really not. Parker’s text is all in a central column, the paragraphs are very short and widely spaced, and the columns of illustrations both drive toward the center of the page. Dunn’s illustrations drive to the gutter and feature long, densely spaced paragraphs with heavy, close text headers.
The Parker page with the six illustrations of pens isn’t even in his materials section, Dunn scrolls through ABOUT A DOZEN pages of illustrations of pens because those ARE in his materials section. He points out that they both have an “unconventional” section (Dunn calls them “materials,” Parker calls them “tools”) which both feature hands as unconventional inking devices. Both Parker and Dunn include “fingers” and “sponges” as unconventional tools on the same page. The next page in both books is “Additional supplies” which. Just. Seems like what you would logically call the page that follows your list of supplies? So far that is the most uncontroversial duplication.
The additional supplies for both are Dust brush, pencil, eraser, and rulers. Dunn also includes paper in his additional supplies; Parker has something that I can’t quite make out.
I would like to point out that pencil, eraser, and rulers were recommended supplies in the children’s illustration book I found from 1935.
Actually, that drawing ALSO includes paper, which makes it closer to Dunn’s additional materials page than it is to Parker’s.
From materials it goes to strokes, which in both books starts with pen control, featuring illustrations of how to hold a pen (the illustrations are pretty different) before moving into standard strokes.
This reminds me of how my beginner guitar book starts with the anatomy of a guitar then moves on to how to fret a note then starts with basic chords; that is also very similar to how my beginner recorder book starts with the anatomy of the recorder then moves on to how to finger each note then moves on to how to breathe while playing those notes.
There’s. Just. KIND OF A NATURAL SEQUENCE. That’s how fundamentals books work. You wrote a book on fundamentals, so did he. Introductory chapters of fundamentals books are going to be very similar even across disciplines.
Then Dunn gets upset that both books show things like long lines, short lines, stippling, scribbles, and crosshatching as basic strokes. [again, Juliana Kunstler doing the same thing below in 2012].
Sorry dude. Basic strokes is basic strokes. Those are all super basic and will all show up in a book about fundamentals.
Then Parker has a section called “Consistency in lines” and Dunn says he discusses consistency in his chapter about shading.
Dunn spends two minutes talking about how long it took him to come up with what he thinks consistency means in pen and ink drawing and he settled on: spacing, weight, size, and direction.
- Here’s a nature conservancy blog talking about angle, line weight, density, and line length in crosshatching for shading in 2015, before Dunn’s book was published: https://johnmuirlaws.com/hatching-and-crosshatching-technique/
- Spacing, weight, and direction are all on the WikiHow for
how to do crosshatching.
- Juliana Kunstler, again in 2012, said this about making markings with ink pens:
So, to create value and texture variations - you need to use different strokes, patterns, alter space between stokes, change stroke length and thickness, overlap strokes, etc.
Now let’s see what Parker has to say…
It’s weight, spacing, length, and direction.
Next it’s on to Parker’s page “Variation in Lines;”
Dunn again says that Parker is using “lines” because “strokes” would make it obvious that he’s stealing from Dunn, he then scrolls back through his book to get to “Strokes” – he points out that he discussed pen control, then basic strokes, then variable strokes and that the sequence of the book is near identical but in Dunn’s book “Consistency” is in the chapter on Shading, which is separate from the chapter on strokes while in Parker’s book “Variation in Lines” came after “Consistency in Lines” – in Dunn’s book variation came first, in Parker’s book variation came second. Dunn *seems* to be using this to criticize Parker for *not* following the exact sequence in his book, saying that’s why we learn letters, then we learn words, then we learn sentences, then we learn paragraphs and that this is what happens when you steal people’s stuff without understanding the process.
I would just like to point out that by his logic it’s very sensible to have a fundamentals book that first has history, then has tools, then has pen control, then has strokes. Parker is certainly not the first one to have done this, but neither is Dunn.
Also I’d like to point out that while both books are fundamentals books they both have different goals – Dunn isn’t WRONG to put stroke variation into his chapter on shading, Parker isn’t wrong to put it in a different section.
This is a direct quote transcribed from Dunn’s process on deciding how to describe how you should make your strokes different from one another:
“It took me so long to decide on what word to use. When I eventually came up with the word ‘variation’ – It took me – I went through several different words before I came to ‘variation’ – because – this is one of the things that was problematic about this – I used adjust, I used so many different words. Now, as I said, it was problematic because layers is technically not a variation of a stroke, because if you change a stroke you can change the size, you can change the spacing – even spacing to some degree. So you’re not really, you know, varying a stroke but it’s more like the configuration of a stroke. So it was really problematic to come down with how I would refer to this and then eventually I said ‘you know what, this is the simplest, most effective, concise way to get to that idea.’ And I chose variation.”
I’m really sorry you’re exhausted from reinventing the wheel but
- here’s a video from 2010 called “How to Vary Strokes using Sumi-E Brushes”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsDDQVw8t5g
- Here’s an article about colored pencils from 2012 that mentions varying your strokes twice: https://emptyeasel.com/2012/08/27/the-5-basic-colored-pencil-strokes/
- Here’s a sketch inspiration blog writing about it in 2013: http://sketchinspiration.com/hot-shot-16-vary-the-weight-of-your-lines/
- And AGAIN Juliana Kunstler uses the term “variation” to describe this concept: http://juliannakunstler.com/art2_pen_and_ink.html
Dunn then says that Parker is following the exact same sequence as his book while flipping from Parker’s “Consistency in Lines” to “Variation in Lines” when he’s already mentioned that his own book has “Consistency” in the later Shading chapter and Variation in the early Stroke chapter AND he has already criticized Parker for being unaware of art education pedagogy for getting the order wrong. (You don’t get both; either you can claim he’s copying your sequence exactly or you can claim that he’s an idiot who stole things out of order because he doesn’t know what order they go in but you don’t get to clam both).
We’re at about 31 minutes out of 57.
Then it’s five applications vs. five ways to use a stroke, which we’ve already discussed.
Then Parker’s book goes to “Form lines and Rendering” and Dunn scrolls through a bunch of his book to get to “Shading complex forms” and it’s the same as everything else – some similarities with some variations because we’re still covering fundamental concepts in the same medium.
Parker’s page after “Form lines and rendering” is “Feathering” and Dunn says that’s the same thing as “Varying line weight” in his shading chapter. Again, basic techniques. (and AGAIN - is it “stealing your work” only when you both use the word “variation” or when you use a different word? Dunn makes a big deal out of one of them using the words “thick to thin” and the other using the words “thin to thick” as though the concept of strokes going from narrow to wide is groundbreaking)
At about 33 minutes Dunn starts getting really upset that Parker has gradient scales in the light and shadow parts of the book, focusing on the fact that Parker’s IG preview page has a two step, three step, and six step scale gradient and his own book has a two, three, six, and nine step scale, but it took him a long time to decide to use six. This is a weird one.
You see the gradient in the bottom left quadrant of the instagram post? Dunn is claiming that’s a theft of his idea from the third bar on the right hand column of the page shown here (and the five bars on the bottom left of that page).
Direct transcript of his reaction: “You know when people say ‘wow, wow, that is so easy I could have thought of it’ – yeah, but you didn’t. You know what I mean? Like when we look at some of the old inventions of today it’s so ingenious, a lot of them are so simple. And you wonder ‘why didn’t people think about them before?’ Because people didn’t! That’s it! People just didn’t! So we have to appreciate these simple, ingenious inventions or creations of people – they seem simple and that’s the beauty of it – but you don’t know the amount, the hours and hours and hours and hundreds and thousands of trials and errors before they actually got to that. So yes it does look simple, but the process to get to it was not.”
Dunn appears to be extremely upset that a sample page from Parker’s book shows a six-step gradient that it six narrow rectangular boxes from dark to light when Dunn CREATED AND ORIGINATED THE SIMPLE, INGENIOUS INVENTION of six square boxes from light to dark.
- Here’s a video that has the concept of a gradient bar in a youtube video about crosshatching in 2011. It’s four bars, not six, but it’s the same concept. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=117AN3MQuVs
- Here’s a student exercise covering the same concept with seven bars in 2012 https://annsk9.wordpress.com/2012/10/16/pen-gradient-exercise/
Dunn would MAYBE have a leg to stand on if Parker’s page had two, three, six, and nine exactly, but beyond “gradients exist” the pages are pretty dissimilar and Dunn is getting upset that someone plagiarized his idea for something that I was instructed to do by Mister Lou in my sixth grade art class while making it sound like he brought fire down from mount Olympus.
At 36 minutes Dunn starts getting upset about three value cubes.
- Here’s an article from a painting website in 2007 talking about three values on a cube plus or minus other shadows: http://www.learning-to-see.co.uk/three-cubes
- Incidentally this is also how math and science articles represent cubes: https://www.i-programmer.info/news/112-theory/13071-the-42-question-answered-by-planet-sized-computer.html
There’s Julianna Kunstler again with a four value cube, btw. It’s. It’s just a thing that is used in art instruction. It’s not that deep.
This pivots into a complaint about three values on a complex form but it looks like both of them have a pretty basic exploration of where a light source is coming from.
39 minutes and twenty seconds and Dunn is again upset that Parker, in a totally different section of his book, has an exercise about controlling value,
which is a basic gradient exercise that I’ve personally done in graphite, crayon, ink, watercolor, and oil for various art classes. Dunn has six gradients as examples, Parker has eight, and I guess since it’s not EXACTLY six it doesn’t count because it took Dunn a long time to come up with six as the ideal number for gradients, didn’t it?
Once again, Julianna Kunstler did it before either of them in her art fundamentals syllabus:
At 42 minutes Dunn goes over the “Scaly texture, bumpy texture, fur texture” bit from minute 7,
saying that Parker copied him by doing scaly texture, bumpy texture, and fur on cubes and then it would be TOO OBVIOUS if he did a wood texture the same way so he just drew a wooden cube – except that that’s one of the very clear preview images from the Amazon page (I linked it up above) and it’s pretty obviously a cracked stone cube next to a pockmarked stone sphere comet of some kind. For Dunn this is from his workbook and he asks students to draw the texture in three values; Parker draws a gradient of the texture underneath each of the three example drawings.
Parker’s book has a page titled “Four stages of a drawing,” Dunn has a chapter titled “Stages of a finished drawing.”
I have no idea how many stages there are to Dunn’s finished drawing and I CANNOT STRESS ENOUGH the only thing we’ve seen from “Four Stages of a Drawing” is a blurry still of a moving page captured from an instagram video 21 seconds long while Parker is flipping through his book.
From there it’s basically Dunn showing the process for creating his book and doing the layout and then speaking direct to camera to Jake Parker about integrity.
MY TAKEAWAY:
Dunn’s book “Pen and Ink Drawing” is self-published, which is not a BAD thing but it really makes me wonder how many other drawing instructional books he flipped through before putting it out.
He claims that almost all of Parker’s instructional bits are taken from his book and while I suppose the “additional materials” section is somewhat suspect (both immediately following “unusual materials” doesn’t raise my eyebrow at all but the inclusion of dust brushes in both and the somewhat similar dust brush illustration is notable; I don’t know how often art books recommend dust brushes, most of my art books are for cartooning and watercolor and they don’t) the structure seems very different and we’ve seen a total of 8 coherent pages from the book and a 21-second clip of someone flipping through the pages. That seems to be a PRETTY SCANT amount of evidence to claim “his entire instructional content is stolen from my book down to the very structure” when we don’t even have a table of contents and a lot of Dunn’s video is scrolling back to other places or switching to his workbook because the sequence *isn’t* exact and in the places where it IS exact it’s where you’d expect.
(Also I think he’s missed something - I think the quill pens in Parker’s book are actually from a history of drawing section while the quill pens in Dunn’s book are in the materials section; I think there’s a whole introduction that he’s overlooking but it’s hard to say because we haven’t seen enough of Parker’s book to tell.)
From what I’ve seen and from watching all of Dunn’s video very closely it looks to me like Dunn genuinely believes he’s being plagiarized but it also looks to me like Dunn doesn’t understand what the state of the industry is in terms of “common knowledge.”
In particular I think it is RIDICULOUS to claim that someone is stealing the concept of “variable lines” from you because that is not a concept that Dunn originated by any stretch of the imagination AND varying lines by changing length, width, spacing, direction, etc. is not unique to Dunn or created by him. The same is very much true of his gradient box outrage - these are uncopyrightable concepts that are fundamental to art education and have been around forever and it is SHOCKING that someone who claims to believe in the importance of pedagogy is unfamiliar with them AND is claiming that a professional art instructor who has been teaching art at universities and online for more than a decade stole them from him.
And there’s still every possibility that Parker DID lift his instructional sections wholesale from Dunn’s work (in spite of very recently telling his followers to check out Dunn’s book and giving him credit on the Inktober instagram page) but that’s REALLY hard to tell based on the minuscule amount of the book that we’ve actually seen.
Anyway.
Bye.
(via smallandsundry)
