# A Recent Critique of the Sight-Size Method By Seymon Bilmes **URL:** \ **Category:** General Drawing\ **Tags:** drawing, process, sight-size, education\ **Created:** [February 6, 2025, 12:47pm UTC](https://www.smartermarx.com/t/a-recent-critique-of-the-sight-size-method-by-seymon-bilmes/1984 "2025-02-06T12:47:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![AWaichulis](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/www.smartermarx.com/awaichulis/32/2859_2.png) [@AWaichulis](https://www.smartermarx.com/u/AWaichulis)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2025, 12:47pm UTC](https://www.smartermarx.com/t/a-recent-critique-of-the-sight-size-method-by-seymon-bilmes/1984/1 "2025-02-06T12:47:30Z")
![Ackerman_Sight_Size](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/uploads/smartmarx/original/2X/3/3ce704ecabe04f2a804cd3f732708490fe0a64e2.jpeg) (Illustration from “Charles Bargue. Drawing Course” by Gerald Ackerman, and Graydon Parrish) This morning, I came across an interesting article, "[**The Sight-Size Method, a Critical Overview," by Semyon Bilmes**](https://www.artac.org/post/the-sight-size-method-a-critical-overview-by-semyon-bilmes?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR283pd8CQ7B_0PUSCBItOgwHbUCzM2ZSw19TmiOZDxYhVrIUsMZz333cic_aem_13FhWNd4lFru_ok3F4YPQg). Mr. Blimes aimed to present a critique of the sight-size method, focusing far more on its historical authenticity and much less on evaluating pedagogical implications. I found the article to be quite interesting in terms of refuting historical claims─however, I would argue that the nature of this “critical overview” (what’s included, omitted, and implied) and the weight of its focus on history ultimately creates a problematic argument. The origins of the sight-size method are indeed debated. Some sources trace its use back to at least the 17th century, suggesting it has been part of artistic practice for several centuries. See: [artconservator.williamstownart.org](https://artconservator.williamstownart.org/objective-life-drawing-two-methods-of-seeing). However, its prevalence in traditional ateliers, especially in the crowded studios of 19th-century Paris, is questionable─especially due to spatial constraints that made such setups impractical. Bilmes contends that the sight-size method is a modern phenomenon that has gained popularity in recent decades, particularly in private art schools seeking to revive what is often described as “traditional techniques.” He criticizes the method for promoting a mechanical, point-by-point transfer from the model to the canvas, which he believes can hinder the artist’s development. Let’s take a look at some potential issues with the piece: ### **1. General Overview:** _The Sight-Size Method: A Critical Overview_ by Semyon Bilmes argues that **sight-size is not a long-standing tradition in representational art** but rather a relatively modern practice that has gained popularity in certain atelier-based schools. The article primarily critiques historical claims about sight-size while introducing a number of somewhat unsupported claims about the technical or pedagogical weaknesses of the method itself. As such, I would argue that the article ultimately becomes an argument built upon a “ **genetic fallacy**.” Such a fallacy in argumentation occurs when something is judged as true or false, valid or invalid, based solely on its origins or history rather than its actual merits. In this case, the author’s claims on the shortcomings of sight-size are not substantiated by a “critical overview” but rather by claims about its historical legitimacy. Similarly, one could also interpret this article as an exercise in **Appeal to Tradition** (_Argumentum ad Antiquitatem_):\*\* if they understand the core argument of the article to be implying that sight-size is invalid **because** it is _not a long-standing tradition._ As such, this would be an appeal to tradition—assuming that something must be good or valid only if it has been historically established. _ **It is only fair to note that sight-size proponents using historical usage as a justification for current usage may also be guilty of this fallacy!** _ ### **2. Historical Accuracy: Are the Claims Justified?** - **Does Sight-Size Have a Historical Basis?** - **Possible Misinterpretation of Atelier Practices** - **The Role of Photography in Sight-Size** ### **3. Some Argumentative Issues to Keep in Mind** - \*\* Genetic Fallacy\*\* - **Problematic Sight-Size and “Traditional” Drawing Dichotomy** - **Potential Bias appears from Personal Pedagogical Views** ### **Final Thoughts** While I would indeed argue that the article **exposes issues with some historical claims** about the sight-size method, I’d say it doesn’t rise beyond a genetic fallacy argument to meet the promise or implication of its title. As with all tools and processes, the “goodness” or “badness” of any aspect of your artistic practices must be determined by your own goals for development, output, and fulfillment. In any case, I do applaud Mr. Bilmes for addressing this issue and hope that he might put forward an additional piece in the future that will focus more on pedagogical concerns and developmental dynamics. In response to my thoughts on the matter on social media, some were quick to respond that **the original article aims to solely refute the historical lineage of sight-size not to discredit the method itself.** I did suggest that this CAN be a case of perceived argument conflicting with authorial intent, but I think there exists a good amount of evidence this is NOT the case: First, the title sets a negative, evaluative tone with “The Sight-Size Method: A Critical Overview." This language choice indeed suggests a more broad undermining of the method itself. If the intent were only to examine historical claims, one might think that the title would reflect this. (e.g., “_The Historical Claims of Sight-Size._" ) Furthermore, If the goal were purely historical correction, the article could explicitly separate the issues of historical claims from the validity of the process (thus eliminating the presence of the genetic fallacy) by simply stating that “_While sight-size may not have the long historical tradition some claim, it remains a valid method for observational representationalism._” Instead, the article implies that because sight-size is a modern development, it lacks legitimacy, which functions as an implicit attack on its validity. In addition to the above-mentioned omissions and implications, Bilmes describes the method as _"a mechanical point-by-point transfer from the model to paper or canvas,_" suggesting a lack of a more preferred mode of engagement in the artistic process. He further contends that the method “_produces a false sense of accomplishment_,” implying that it may somehow be a tool of self-deception and/or hinder the development of essential artistic skills. These assertions, in concert with the above-mentioned issues, lead the reader to conclude, with reasonable certainty, that Bilmes’ critique extends beyond historical considerations, encompassing a broader disapproval of the method’s application and its potential limitations in fostering comprehensive artistic development.