No, it’s more like it’s because he’s reviewed so many art books that he can tell when books are seemingly so similar that it’s uncanny. I say seemingly because Jake’s book technically isn’t out yet.
Dunn himself claimed he doesn’t own the fundamental concepts; that’s a strawman. What concerned him was the overall layout, organization, and specific diagrams used in the book. The two are completely different from each other and he is, at the very least, within the grounds to at least bring it up as an issue.
Not once did he ever say you couldn’t use line weight or values, just that he formulated proprietary systems to explain them, and those systems also happens to appear in Parker’s book. What really makes Parker look bad is that he has showcased and praised Dunn’s book in the past. If he was at the very least inspired by it, he should’ve at least cited Dunn’s book. Maybe he did in the back of the book, but we won’t find out until the book has been released.
No, it’s more like it’s because he’s reviewed so many art books that he can tell when books are seemingly so similar that it’s uncanny. I say seemingly because Jake’s book technically isn’t out yet.
Dunn himself claimed he doesn’t own the fundamental concepts; that’s a strawman. What concerned him was the overall layout, organization, and specific diagrams used in the book. The two are completely different from each other and he is, at the very least, within the grounds to at least bring it up as an issue.
Not once did he ever say you couldn’t use line weight or values, just that he formulated proprietary systems to explain them, and those systems also happens to appear in Parker’s book. What really makes Parker look bad is that he has showcased and praised Dunn’s book in the past. If he was at the very least inspired by it, he should’ve at least cited Dunn’s book. Maybe he did in the back of the book, but we won’t find out until the book has been released.