the look(er)

In the excerpt of Sartre dealt in class (''the look''), he says little about the consequence of being looked at. Instead he's focussed on making a spectacle or becoming one.

Sight is the most apparent sense we have, with sound and smell following closely. We’re all familiar with the saying: seeing is believing. According to Cambridge it’s said to ​mean that ''if you see something yourself, you will ​believe it to ​exist or be ​true, ​despite the ​fact that it is ​extremely ​unusual or ​unexpected''. So the next question is this: what do we see?

Day in, day out we go about our business. When going outside we encounter other people, but apart from a select few we don’t know them. Some are complete strangers, others (vague) acquaintances. We pay them no mind or make an assumption about them, it can happen effortlessly. The other day one of our fellow classmates remarked something that has been on my mind for some time now: are we able to know each other fully? And consequently I’d like to add: when we see each other, what do we know?

If you're answering these questions to yourself, how many of your words are inflected with other meanings? Is language objective enough or is it subjective? (Amusingly, Sarte once wrote ‘’words are loaded pistols’’.)

Back to Sartre, in the article he describes the acts of looking. He watches someone in the park, but the moment they look back the pleasure is gone. To me this is a sign of acknowledging how it’s a one-sided affair and there’s a possibility to judge someone. The pleasure may disappear, but does the assumption?

Concluding, instead of judging one another on a look, perhaps we can grant each other the space to be (imperfect).

And in order to get into the music videos, enjoy a Grimes track, which features the befitting lines:
Why you looking at me now?
Why you looking at me again?
What if I pulled my teeth?
Cut my hair underneath my chin

(This post is an excerpt of a bigger essay)