Ken-ichi Sasaki 
The Sexiness of Visuality 
A Semantic Aanalysis of the Japanese Words: Eye and Seeing 
0. The Scrutinizing Eye of Modern Western Culture 
It is an u n d e n i a b l e fact that visuality dominates m o d e r n Western aes-
thetics. For a start, the crystall ization of the m o d e r n generic concept of art 
was m a d e poss ible by the canoniza t ion of visual arts. T h e not ion of »beaux-
arts« is symbol ic : a l though ar t was different ia ted f rom other arts (knowledge 
and powers of making) by beau ty as its differentia, the n a m e »beaux-arts« 
was and is par t icular ly given to the visual arts.1 Indeed , the beaut i ful belongs 
above all to the eye, as T h o m a s Aquinas says in his f amous formulat ion. 2 
Aesthet ics as ph i l o sophy of art that insists on the beaut i ful implies, therefore , 
a t e n d e n c y to p r o m o t e visuality. 
T h e p r iv i l eged p lace of visuali ty in m o d e r n aesthet ics is con f i rmed 
th rough some basic concepts of this discipline other than the beautiful . Such 
concep t s as form, representation, symbol, image, imagination, figure, schema, etc. 
a re in themse lves visual not ions . T h e French word »ouvrage«, which was 
used at the b e g i n n i n g of m o d e r n t imes for the art work, originally mean t 
a rch i tec tura l cons t ruc t ion . T h e word expression also b e c a m e a technical term 
in aesthetics, firstly in the field of paint ing.3 
This impor t ance of visuality in m o d e r n aesthetics was supported by some 
o the r cons idera t ions . T h e first belongs to nature : among the five senses vi-
sion is by far the mos t i m p o r t a n t and useful for our survival. Living without 
sight for one h o u r wou ld p r o b a b l y be more difficult than living without hear-
ing for one day. This does no t necessarily mean , however , that vision is also 
the m o s t i m p o r t a n t sense for our spiritual and intellectual life: everyone would 
1 Cf. Paul O. Kristeller, »The Modern System of the Arts «-Journal of the History of Ideas, 
vols. XII-XIII (1951-52). 
2 »...we call beautiful things which give pleasure when they are seen«. (Thomas Aquinas, 
Summa theologiae, I q. 5 a 4 ad 1, in Wladislaw Tatarkiewicz, History of Aesthetics, II, 
Mouton, The Hague 1970, p. 257. 
3 The most basic text on this subject is: Charles Le Brun, Conférence sur l'expression 
générale et particulière des passions (1668). Cf. Nouvelle Revue de Psychanalyse, No. 21, 
printemps 1980. 
Filozofski vestnik, XVII (2/1996), pp. 159-170. 
Ken-ichi Sasaki 
hesitate to say that a pa in t ing is by its o w n na tu re m o r e p r o f o u n d than a p iece 
of music or a novel.4 
There is another reason, pecul iar to W e s t e r n cul ture , for the p r e d o m i -
nance of visuality in aesthetics. T h e ca tas t rophe of the t r agedy Oedipus the 
King by Sophocles is of ten cited as a symbol of the visual inc l ina t ion tha t 
characterizes Wes te rn civilization. O e d i p u s , who , af ter a zealous pursu i t of 
the murde re r of the previous King Laius, d i scovered the cruel t ru th concern-
ing his own birth and past, puts out his own eyes. T h e eye and sight be ing 
symbols of h u m a n unders tanding , this act is i n t e rp re t ed as the p u n i s h m e n t 
Oedipus bestows u p o n his pre tent ious desire to know. H e r e , the intel lectual 
side of h u m a n nature is ident if ied with the eye wh ich seeks to see eve ry th ing 
despite its own weakness. W e find a similar ac t ion also in Shakespea re ' s King 
Lear. Indeed , in J a p a n e s e also, 'eye ' signifies by synecdoche insight. But we 
are unaware of any instance of such a pun i t ive act ion against the eye in J a p a -
nese theater or li terature, so that I myself was at first shocked by this theatr i-
cal topos because of its strange cruelty. 
In the third and last place, we mus t take into cons idera t ion the basic 
t endency of theories of art of the 18th cen tu ry w h e n m o d e r n aesthet ics took 
shape as a phi losophical discipline. It was, i ndeed , a cen tu ry of pa in t ing f r o m 
the viewpoint of the history of aesthetics, n o t that of art his tory. It was paint -
ing that theoret icians took as the p a r a d i g m of every art: it i nc luded l i tera ture 
(Marmontel) , theater (Diderot), dance (Noverre) , g a r d e n i n g (Girardin) and 
music (Couper in and Cahusac) . 5 In the 18th cen tu ry pa in t ing was r e g a r d e d 
as impor tan t because it enables us to expe r i ence in a quasi-real m a n n e r an 
imaginat ive world. Typical is the case of Didero t , a critic of the Salon exhibi -
tions. W h e n looking at a masterpiece , he forgot the fact that he was look ing at 
a paint ing in a hall of the Louvre and felt as if en te r ing into the pa in ted scene, 
like mov ing in its space and jo in ing in the act ion of the pa in ted charac ters . 
His descr ipt ion was not focused u p o n the sur face of the canvas b u t on the 
represen ted world.6 H e was c o n c e r n e d with tha t p o w e r of involv ing specta-
4 I find the following thought ofJ.-B. Dubos exceptional: »The sight has a much greater 
empire over the soul than any of the other senses. ... We may say here, metaphori-
cally speaking, that the eye is nearer to the soul than the ear.« [Critical Reflections on 
Poetry and Music, translated by Th. Mugent, vol. 1, London 1748. (Reprint: AMS Press, 
New York 1978), pp. 321-22.) 
5 Cf. my paper: »Le Dix-huitième siècle comme ère de la peinture«, XVIIIe Siècle, No. 
27, 1995, pp. 481-502. 
6 Another Diderot's example of aesthetic experiences of this kind, is the description he 
gives of the painting of Le Prince entitled Pastoral Russe, in Salons de 1165 (Oeuvres 
Completes), t. 14, Hermann, Paris 1984, p. 226. 
160 
The Sexiness of Visuality 
tor , wh ich rad ia t ed f r o m the pa r t of the work, that was called its »interéssant« 
or »intérêt«. ' 
Th i s inc l ina t ion towards visuality was so striking a feature in the aesthet-
ics of the 18th cen tury , that it was natural for the format ion of m o d e r n aes-
thetics to b e e l abo ra t ed on tha t basis. But the kind of involvement found in 
the wri t ings of D i d e r o t was kep t away f rom the field of art exper ience by the 
m o r e r ecen t aesthet ics of dis interestedness established by Kant. In his »Ana-
lytic of Aes the t ic J u d g e m e n t « concern ing the beautiful , Kant searches for the 
cond i t ions of cor rec t j u d g e m e n t . His claim is well known . A genuine aes-
thet ic j u d g e m e n t is o n e which is given immedia te ly by our feeling of pleas-
u re /d i sp l ea su re , that is: wi thout any commi tmen t of our »interest«, nor me-
dia t ion of »concept« , and i n d e p e n d e n t of any »emotion«. Modern visuality 
was thus pur i f i ed and steril ized through this no t ion of aesthetics. 
H e r e in this pape r , by m e a n s of a semant ic analysis of J a p a n e s e words, 
we are go ing to try to res tore to eye and seeing their original impuri ty and 
r ichness: the sexiness of visuality. I am not however thinking of an aestheticized 
sexiness as desc r ibed by R o l a n d Barthes: 
Different from secondary sexuality, the sexiness of a body (which is not its 
beauty) inheres in the fact that it is possible to discern (to fantasize) in it the 
erotic practice to which one subjects it in thought (I conceive of this particular 
practice, specifically, and of no other). Similarly, distinguished within the text, 
one might say that there are sexy sentences: disturbing by their very isolation, as 
if they possessed the promise which is made to us, the readers, by a linguistic 
practice, as if we were to seek them out by virtue of a pleasure.8 
It seems to m e tha t this aphor i sm betrays the limited nature of m o d e r n 
sensibil i ty. Or iginal ly , the sexiness of body or sentence must have been an 
e loquen t c h a r m cas t ing a spell over us. Here , on the contrary, it is someth ing 
' sought out ' and ' d i sce rned ' by the delicate sense of a semiotician. W e shall 
n o w go back to pr imi t ive sensibility and rediscover the vigour of visuality in 
the semant ics of the J a p a n e s e , which preserves, I think, archaic layers of sen-
sibility. 
T h e m a i n b o d y of this p a p e r is divided into two parts . In the first part, 
we shall discuss the act ive charac ter of seeing, so active that it involves all our 
be ing in the exper ien t ia l field. In the second, on the contrary, it is the active 
7 Cf. my paper: »L'Esthétique de l'intérêt - De d'Aubignac à Sulzer«,JTLA (Journal of 
the Faculty of Letters, The University of Tokyo, Aesthetics), Vol. 10 (1985), pp. 29-50. 
8 Roland Barthes, Roland Barthes by Roland Barthes, translated by R. Howard, in: Roland 
Barthes Reader, S. Sontag (ed.), Hill & Wang, New York 1982, p. 422. 
161 
Ken-ichi Sasaki 
power of the world which shall be u n d e r l i n e d : the dense p h e n o m e n o n en-
dowed with this s trong appeal is also cal led »eye« in J a p a n e s e , jus t like the 
visual organ. After these analyses, we shall re fer to the specifici ty of sight 
among the five senses. 
7. The Gordons' Eyes 
In Wes te rn civilization, the Greek m y t h of the G o r g o n s conce rns the 
active power of the eye. It concerns th ree te r r i fy ing m a i d e n s w h o tu rned into 
stone a n y o n e who looked u p o n them. T h e pe t r i fy ing p o w e r of the G o r g o n s 
comes f r o m their eyes,9 because the eye is the only o rgan tha t can m a k e a 
psychic assault. Wit tgenstein knew this abil i ty of the eye: 
We do not see the human eye as a receiver, it appears not to let anything in, 
but to send something out. The ear receives; the eye looks. (It casts glances, it 
flashes, radiates, gleams.) One can terrify with one's eyes, not with one's ear 
or nose. When you see the eye you see something going out from it. You see 
the look in the eye.10 
If we f ind our phi losopher saying a smar t thing, it mus t c o m e f r o m the 
fact that we are too much accus tomed to a superf ic ia l ly rat ional is t ic m a n n e r 
of thinking to be sensitive to and able to not ice the psychic p o w e r e m a n a t i n g 
f rom the eye, which is taken for a recept ive organ . W h e n I r ead this para-
graph for the first t ime, I felt it to be somewha t fo rced . In the con tex t of daily 
life, however , I not only unders tand this m a n n e r of th ink ing well, bu t h a v e 
also lived this situation since the J a p a n e s e l anguage (as m y intel lectual ele-
ment) incorpora tes this world view. 
In J a p a n e s e the ve rb miru (to see) and the n o u n me (eye) h a v e a c o m m o n 
root. Seeing is lexically descr ibed as an ope ra t i on of the eye and the eye 
reciprocally as the organ of seeing. I wou ld the re fo re like to use the expres-
sion »seeing/eye« in order to designate this a m a l g a m a t e d state of seeing and 
9 Some dictionaries, including Encyclopedia Americana, A Classical Dictionary of Classical 
Antiquities (by Seyffert/Nettleship/Sandys) and An Oxford Companion to Classical Lit-
erature, do not explicitly attribute this power to the eye. For example, the Oxford 
Companion says: »The Gorgon's head turned to stone anything that meets its gaze« 
(my emphasis); »its gaze« being the occasion, the effect comes from her »head«. Ac-
cording to Der kleine Pauly, however, the name »Gorgon« means etymologically 
»schrecklich für Blick und Anblick«. 
10 Ludwig Wittgenstein, Zettel, G. E. M. Anscombe and G. H. von Wright (eds.), Basil 
Blackwell, Oxford 1967, p. 40e. 
162 
The Sexiness of Visuality 
eye. T h e J a p a n e s e »see ing/eye« is not so dreadfu l as the eyes of the Gorgons. 
All the same, the express ion implies no t receptivity bu t positive activity. I 
th ink we J a p a n e s e did no t have even the slightest no t ion of seeing/eye as a 
recept ive p rocess b e f o r e be ing taught the Wes te rn theory of percept ion. Let 
m e presen t three basic aspects of seeing/eye - experiment , the erotic and physical 
i n v o l v e m e n t - t h rough which I shall try to make some general remarks on 
the inf luent ia l p o w e r of seeing/eye. 
(A) Seeing/eye as e x p e r i m e n t 
Apa r t f r o m its use in the plain sense of »to see«, one of the most f requent 
uses of the v e r b miru is as an auxiliary verb in the sense of »try to«. We have 
ano the r ve rb s ignifying »to try«: kokoromiru, which, a l though so perfect ly 
a m a l g a m a t e d into one w o r d that we ordinar i ly do not think of decompos ing 
it, is in fact m a d e f r o m two words: kokoro (»heart« or »mind«) and miru. W e 
can h e n c e gloss it as fol lows: »to try« is conceived in J a p a n e s e as effectuating 
some th ing in o rde r to »see« the result in the »mind«; in short, it concerns 
men ta l e x p e r i m e n t . This m e a n i n g is originally impor ted into the verb miru 
(to see) itself in its above m e n t i o n e d use as an auxiliary verb . In this case, the 
ma in ve rb j o i n e d to miru mus t be given in its perfect ive aspect. For example , 
»Disney land e i t te-miru« (word by word: »to Disney- land /have gone/see« in 
the sense of »try to visit Disney-land«), which, put t ing a stress on the perfec-
tive aspect , I m a y gloss as: »try anyway to visit Disney-land in order to see 
with one ' s o w n eyes h o w it is (or would have been) in fact«. 
W e J a p a n e s e use very of ten this miru phrase , which seems to bet ray a 
par t icu lar side of our menta l i ty . W e seem to like to do something tentatively 
in o rde r to see the resul t af terwards, m u c h more than to make first of all a 
deta i led examina t ion and j u d g e m e n t in order to do it well. This is at least 
w h a t the miru ph rase implies . In this phrase , strictly speaking, the m o m e n t of 
trial be longs to the per fec t ive aspect of the verb jo ined to miru; miru, on the 
cont rary , expresses the j u d g e m e n t given to the result of that trial. In fact, 
however , I p r e f e r to th ink that the perfect ive aspect of the main verb is rather 
c la imed by the auxi l iary v e r b miru which has another sense of »having a real 
exper ience« . W i s h i n g a j u d g e m e n t to be based u p o n a real exper ience, we 
choose first of all to ef fectuate it until it is ended . Let us examine an example 
in an old shor t p o e m : 
Shinobu-yama, shinobite kayou michi-mo gana, 
hito-no kokoro-no oku-mo miru beku. 
(Just as the name of Mount Shinobu [to hide oneself, or to endure] suggests, I 
should like to have a secret path leading to your house in order to reach the 
depths of your heart.) 
163 
Ken-ichi Sasaki 
This p o e m (my emphasis) is woven in to the Tale oflse (Section 15) wh ich 
combines this kind of short p o e m with shor t love stories, all a t t r ibu ted to a 
single hero Narihira , the famous p layboy-poe t . 1 1 T h e scene is a n o t h e r n Prov-
ince very far f rom the capital. O n his j o u r n e y N a r i h i r a mee t s a beau t i fu l 
woman , the i l l -matched wife of a coun t ry -man . H e sends he r this love p o e m . 
In it, »to see (miru) the depths of he r hear t« m e a n s »to k n o w it«; c o n n o t i n g 
»through their sexual relation«. In teres t ing is the p h r a s e fo l lowing the p o e m 
in the Tale of Ise which descr ibes the reac t ion of the w o m a n , since we f ind 
there a contrast be tween miru and omou (= think, cons ider , be l ieve , j u d g e 
etc.). The w o m a n finds [omou) it ex t remely pleasing, but , b e i n g af ra id tha t 
Narihira , coming f r o m the Capital , would see (miru) h e r hea r t as so rustic, she 
could not send h im back her answer. H e r e b o t h omou and miru c o n c e r n a 
cognition, but not of the same form. Omou des igna tes a j u d g e m e n t m a d e on 
the love p o e m . So she keeps a certain d is tance f r o m the objec t of he r omoi(= 
nomina l fo rm of omou)] in fact, omou a n d omoiimply a f ree space for the m i n d 
to move a round . He r thought (omoi) is, t he re fo re , m o r e or less d is in teres ted 
and aesthetic. By contrast , she lacks comple te ly this k ind of c o m p o s u r e in he r 
fear that the p layboy f r o m the capital wou ld see (miru) he r rustic m i n d . H e r 
fear is concerned with the knowledge tha t the m a n seeks to a d v a n c e a rela-
tion with this woman , and f r o m which the w o m a n is anx ious to k e e p he r 
rustic mind . In short, when miru signifies no t a s imple visual pe r cep t i on bu t a 
cognition, it concerns one which involves our exis tence . It is exact ly this 
implicat ion that makes it possible for miru to m e a n »try to«. 
(B) T h e erotic m e a n i n g of seeing 
The example given above has a l ready suggested the connec t ion of miru 
(to see) with the erotic - »to see (miru) the dep ths of he r hear t« p r e s u p p o s e s a 
sexual relat ion. Indeed , the verb miru no t only p r e s u p p o s e s bu t also some-
times means »to enter into the re la t ion of m a n and w o m a n « in anc ien t or 
medieva l J a p a n e s e . 1 2 J a p a n e s e miru was also used to m e a n just »to see a per-
son«,1 3 and in its fo rm as a »spontaneous v e r b « 1 4 mieru (or miyu) can signify 
»someone appears /comes« . J a p a n e s e see ing h e n c e pr ivi leges the pe r sona l 
11 Poet of the 9th century, famous for his handsomeness and many love affairs. Tale oflse 
is one of the »uta monogatari«, stories constructed on the basis of poems. Most of the 
linguistic and the literary materials are taken from: Nohon Kokugo Daijiten (Grand Dic-
tionary of Japanese), 10 vols., Shogakkan Publisher, Tokyo 1972-76. 
12 The English phrase »Jack is seeing Betty« can imply that they are sleeping together. 
But it concerns not a lexical meaning but a figurative meaning. A figurative manner 
of speech represents a particular way of understanding of its subject person, and not 
that of people as such. 
164 
The Sexiness of Visuality 
re la t ion: the sexual re la t ion is its ex t reme case. We have nowadays lost this 
use excep t in a few c o m p o u n d words like: misomeru (v. literally first to see: to 
fall in love at first sight) and miai (n. literally seeing o n e another : ar ranging a 
m e e t i n g of a m a n and a w o m a n in view of their manage ) . It was, however , 
ve ry f r equen t ly used in anc ien t and medieval t imes in certain situations. He re 
again, I choose an e x a m p l e of miru used with omu. I f ind such a phrase in the 
first chap te r of the Tale of Genji. I shall give it first in the English translation 
m a d e by Seidenst icker , and shall then try more literally to translate the origi-
nal text . A c c o r d i n g to Seidenst icker ' s translation, »Fujitsubo was for him (= 
Genji) a vision of sub l ime beauty . If he could have someone like her . . .« . 1 5 
Genj i is a y o u n g Pr ince, a b o u t twelve years old and just marr ied , who will be 
an ou t s t and ing p l ayboy as the hero of the novel . Fuj i tsubo is a Princess of the 
f o r m e r E m p e r o r and all the peop le of the court f ind her looking very much 
like the d e a d m o t h e r of G e n j i who begins to yearn for her . I will now trans-
late m o r e li terally the same par t of the text: 
Genji thought in his mind (omou) that Fujitsubo's figure was unequaled, and 
wished to see (miru) such a woman as her... 
H e r e , i n d e e d miru m e a n s »to have a love relat ion with someone«. And 
this love re la t ion is a real one , different iated f rom the institutional relation of 
mar r i age . So w h e n Genj i wishes to see her , his aspiration goes beyond mere 
seeing to t ouch ing and ho ld ing her , and even fur ther . It is a euphemis t ic 
synecdoche . Being, however , a lexical i tem, it reflects a way of feeling pecu-
liar to the peop le . In o the r words , this »part« which is miru (to see) contains a 
d y n a m i s m e x p a n d i n g to a »totality« (love relation). 
(C) See ing / eye invo lv ing the whole person 
W e h a v e n o w d e m o n s t r a t e d that in seeing/eye we mee t with the world 
or see s o m e o n e directly, in person, and get an otherwise unat ta inable cognition 
of the depth of the wor ld or mind . Eye is the place where this condensed 
13 As we shall see later, modern Japanese uses different verb for »see an object/scene 
etc.« (miru) and for »see a person« (au). 
14 Japanese grammar adopts the Western terms of »transitive verb« and »intransitive 
verb«, but the concepts are different. In the grammar of Western languages, these 
notions are defined in terms of syntax: »transitive verb« is a verb that takes a direct 
object; »intransitive« is one without a direct object. In Japanese grammar, on the 
contrary, these notions are defined in terms of the mode of action: hence an »intran-
sitive verb« describes a spontaneous act. 
15 Murasaki-Shikibu, The Tale of Genji, translated by E. G. Seidenstecker, vol. 1, Alfred 
A. Knopf, New York 1977, p. 18. 
165 
Ken-ichi Sasaki 
experience happens, and »to see« designates this activated state of mutual 
communication we have with the world or another person. Seeing as power 
is in fact quite a familiar phenomenon. The Japanese expression »me de korosu 
(to kill with the eye)« corresponds exactly to the English idiom »the killing 
eye«. And another one, »me-ni mono iwasu (word by word: to the eye/some-
thing/let say = »let the eye transmit a message«) compounds to the similar 
notion of »the eloquent eye« in Western languages. Let me quote here three 
sets of examples. 
The English idiom »to have an eye for something« (for example paint-
ing) concerns the power of the eye as insight; in Japanese , we say »miru mega. 
aru (word by word: seeing/eye/have = »have an eye which has insight«). 
Typical is the case of a doctor who »kanja-o miru (= sees the patient)«. As in 
modern Japanese we do not use the verb miru (to see) in the sense of »to see 
someone«, but the verb »au«, this turn of the phrase »to see the patient« is 
striking. The expressive use of the verb miru seems to underl ine the active 
aspect of the doctor's examination. I find the most impressive description of 
the penetrating power of the eye in a proverbial expression: »Ganko shihai ni 
tessuru.« (= »The rays of the eye pierce the sheet to its backside.«) Ganko (the 
rays of the eye) means the penetrating insight, and the phrase speaks of the 
insight of an excellent reader sufficiently penetrat ing as to catch the hidden 
meaning of the text (or to read between the lines). 
As for the second set of examples, I find the most straightforward way of 
expressing the active power of the eye in the interjection »Me!«-, which is used 
to put a stop to an act, generally adressed to a child with a gentle staring 
expression. It is so familiar an expression that we no longer notice in it the 
meaning of eye, although it is in fact the same word as »eye«. I even feel in it 
something like a spell, for it was the primitive mind that cast a spell f rom the 
eye in pronouncing the interjection »Me!« As to the magic power of the see-
ing/eye, I should like to call attention to the compound verb »mi-iru« (liter-
ally: »seeing-enter«). Generally, this verb is glossed as »seeing-in«. But we 
have another gloss which relates this seeing-in with the stem »mi« meaning 
»spectre«, so that the verb is understood as implying »to possess, or to charm«. 
I think we have here the most archaic layer of the semantics of the word 
»seeing«. 
The last set of examples, concerns a very peculiar expression: »~me-o 
miru (word by word: to see such and such an eye = to have such and such an 
experience)«. Here »to see such and such an eye« does not mean »to look 
someone straight in the eyes«. The »eye« signifies here not the visual organ 
but the existential situation. Hence seeing and the eye designate an existen-
tial experience. Of prime inportance here is the fact that when we use this 
166 
The Sexiness of Visuality 
p h r a s e it a lways conce rns a very intense experience. In general , it is a diffi-
cult one : »uki-me-o miru (to h a v e a very sad experience)«, »tsurai-me-o miru (to 
have a pa in fu l exper ience)« , and »kakaru-me-o miru (to have such an experi-
ence = to have such a ' h a r d ' experience)«. W e occasionally encounter a posi-
tive case: »yoi-me-o miru (to have a good exper ience = to have an extraordi-
nar i ly h a p p y exper ience)« . These formula t ions signify, therefore , an excep-
t ional ly in tense expe r i ence . 
Wi th this last case, we have already en te red into the problemat ics of the 
second pa r t of the p a p e r , for we are not concerned with our own perceiving 
eye b u t with the eye which encounters or even attacks us. It is not the plain 
m e t a p h o r ba sed u p o n the similarity of shape such as »the eye of the storm« 
or »the eye of a needle« . It is difficult to form an image of this eye situation: I 
i n t e rp re t this express ion as a project ion of the not ion of the seeing/eye as a 
dense expe r i ence to the aspect of the world which br ings us such experi-
ences . 
2. Eye of the World 
See ing / eye is loca ted wi thin a dense p h e n o m e n o n which we experi-
ence . As far as we d o m i n a t e the object , we can say that we look at it. But 
w h e n the objec t or the wor ld becomes overwhelming, the situation becomes 
inver t ed : we are n o w looked at by it. This is exactly what Merleau-Ponty 
sought to descr ibe , cal l ing on a painter to testify: 
Inevitably the roles between him (the painter) and the visible are reversed. 
That is why so many painters have said that things look at them. As André 
Marchand says, after Klee: »In a forest, I have felt many times over that it was 
not I who looked at the forest. Some days I felt that the trees were looking at 
me, were speaking to me... I was there, listening... I think that the painter 
must be penetrated by the universe and not want to penetrate it... I expect to 
be inwardly submerged, buried. Perhaps I paint to break out.« 
We speak of »inspiration«, and the word should be taken literaly. There really 
is inspiration and expiration of Being, action and passion so slightly discern-
ible that it becomes impossible to distinguish between what sees and what is 
seen, what paints and what is painted.16 
A c c o r d i n g to the a rcha ic sensibility evidenced in the J a p a n e s e vocabu-
lary, n o t only pa in te r s bu t eve ryone was aware of such a mutua l communica-
16 Maurice Merleau-Ponty, »Eye and Mind«, translated by Carleton Dallery, in Harold 
Osborne (ed.), Aesthetics, Oxford University Press, Oxford 1972, p. 63. 
167 
Ken-ichi Sasaki 
t ion with the world, result ing in an excep t iona l ly in tense expe r i ence . But 
how is it possible to represent the densi ty of an expe r i ence or a s i tuat ion as an 
eye? To tell t he t ruth, it is difficult even for s o m e o n e like m e for w h o m the 
J a p a n e s e language is his native tangue to h a v e an image of this »eye«: J a p a -
nese speaking people in general take the me of »uki-me-o miru« as a com-
pletely d i f ferent word f r o m the me of eye. But I wish to in t e rp re t it as eye. In 
order to do so, I begin with another anc ien t p o e m , sung by a Pr ince for his 
mother the Empress , who has just d ied: 
Kimi-ga-me-o, koishiki-kara-ni, htete ite, 
kakuya koimu-mo kimi-ga me-o hori. 
(Longing for your eyes, I have spent the night here with you: 
it is out of the desire for your eyes that I love you so.)17 
The love of the poet for his dead m o t h e r is focussed on he r eyes so tha t 
he even says h e loves her because of he r eyes. Need less to say the p o e t loves 
all of his mo the r and not just her eyes; only, to see he r in p e r s o n is na tura l ly 
represen ted with a special connec t ion to the image of the eyes. Mer leau-
Ponty talks of the »inspiration and exp i ra t ion of Being«; I p re fe r h e r e to speak 
of »dilatation of being«. For the consc iousness of the poe t , the eye of his 
mother dilates its be ing so as to cover he r ent i re being. Eye has , thus, a privi-
leged quality as the dilating power of be ing. T h e J a p a n e s e l anguage stresses 
this so as to establish lexicographical ly tha t the di la ted b e i n g in s o m e o n e ' s 
exper ience is called me (eye). This is the a b o v e m e n t i o n e d case of »uki-me-o 
miru« or »yoi-me-o miru«. 
Now if I may enter onto unsure g r o u n d , I should like to re fe r to the 
etymological opinion which relates the »me« as eye to »me« as a »bud«. Th i s 
opinion is plausible not only because of the similari ty of their shapes , bu t also 
because a »bud« shows typically the dilatation of being, or b e c o m i n g or change. 
If we may thus relate the eye to b e c o m i n g or wi th a c h a n g i n g p h e n o m e n o n , 
we can also explain another type of use of the w o r d me such as in »shini-me«, 
»ochi-me« and »kawari-me«. According to our dict ionary, in this g roup me m e a n s 
a critical situation, but there is no fu r ther exp lana t ion . For example , »shini-me 
(me of dying)« refers to the last minutes or hour s w h e n s o m e o n e is dying; 
»ochi-me (me of falling)« is decl ining luck; »kawari-me (me of changing)« is the 
turning point , for example of a season. T h e s e uses of me r e s emb le those of 
»uki-me« or »yoi-me« because they des ignate a si tuation. But unl ike the me of 
17 My emphasis. The poem appears in Nihon Shoki, one of the most ancient in Japanese 
history. The mother-Empress is Saimei-Tenno (594-661), who died in Kyushu, far from 
the capital, and the Prince went to Kyushu in order to accompany the body of his 
mother. 
168 
The Sexiness of Visuality 
»uki-me« or »yoi-me«, t hey c a n n o t be used with the verb miru (to see). This use 
of me with miru unde r l ines the close conect ion of those situations to the sub-
jec t pe r son : it conce rns h i s / h e r own situation. O n the contrary, our more 
r e c e n t me such as »shini-me«, »ochi-me« and »kawari-me« which cannot be used 
with the v e r b miru (to see) represents an objective situation. 
I can conce ive with little difficulty this me as a b e c o m i n g or a changing 
p h e n o m e n o n in t e rms of visuality, because it hits us be tween the eyes, though 
it conce rns n o t our s ee ing /eye but the striking p h e n o m e n o n . I think that now 
we have access to our last set of me examples such as »ori-me« (»ori« is »to 
fold«; crease, fold), »kiri-me« (»kire« is »to be cut«; rift, gap, pause), »sakai-
me« (»sakai« is »border« , »boundary« , »frontier« or borderl ine) . It no longer 
conce rns a s i tuat ion b u t the line different iat ing two areas. Nevertheless, we 
migh t des ignate it as a cer ta in critical situation; the object ive me (eye) indi-
cates a chang ing and critical situation that catches the eye. 
3. Vision Among the Five Senses 
W e have e x a m i n e d the J a p a n e s e see ing/eye in two respects: the first is 
tha t of expe r i ences cal led miru (to see), and the second concerns me (eye), not 
seeing bu t the seen one which refers to a certain situation. We also encoun-
te red an i n t e rmed ia t e case »~me-o miru« (to see such and such an eye = to 
have such and such an exper ience) . Summar iz ing these analyses, we can say 
that miru (to see) is charac ter ized by the intensity of an exper ience affecting 
direct ly our exis tence , so that me (eye) is also at t r ibuted to our exper ience or 
even p ro jec ted into some situations when these experiences or situations show 
a critical cha rac te r or a s o m e h o w condensed meaning . 
Mos t r e m a r k a b l e in this semant ic analysis is the intensity of the amalga-
ma t ion of the subjec t and the world, including the project ion of the me (eye) 
in to the wor ld . T h e fact is all the more striking since vision as well as hear ing 
are r e m o t e pe rcep t ions , unl ike smell, taste and the sense of touch. The case 
of taste is suggestive. T h e English word as well as the equivalents in other 
W e s t e r n l anguages were t aken as basic technical terms in m o d e r n aesthetics 
s ignifying the facul ty of aesthet ic j udgemen t . It was especially the reflexive 
and apprec ia t ive way of func t ion ing peculiar to taste that was under l ined in 
this use. T h e w o r d taste is f u r t h e r m o r e used to designate the stylistic charac-
ter of an art work . This d o u b l e use as faculty and style1 8 cor responds to the 
18 Taste as a faculty was based upon a »good taste«, which refered to the taste of the 
period of the Louis XIV. Cf. Trübners Deutsches Wörterbuch, art. »Geschmack«, vol. 3, 
Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 1939, p. 128 b. 
169 
Ken-ichi Sasaki 
fact that taste is a contact sense: we canno t dis t inguish clearly the subjec t a n d 
the object. From the viewpoint of the subjec t -objec t re la t ion in vis ion a n d 
taste, what we have discovered above in the J a p a n e s e w o r d s s ee ing / eye ap-
pears paradoxical : how is it possible for a r e m o t e pe rcep t ive sense such as 
vision to achieve an intense fusion of subjec t a n d objec t? 
The answer to this quest ion is s imple: it is the in tense expe r i ence wh ich 
fuses the subject with a distant object in the case of vision. O n the con t ra ry , 
the subject-object fusion in taste is s imply based on the physica l fact of con-
tact and not on the power of the object . O n this po in t I f ind the J a p a n e s e 
lexicon very suggestive: J a p a n e s e has no special v e r b taking the n a m e of 
food as a subject of phrase in the m e a n i n g of »having the taste of«, unl ike for 
the other four senses.1 9 W e have just o n e v e r b »ajiwau« (to taste) for the sense 
of taste which indicates the act or at t i tude of a pe r son . T h e fact tha t m o d e r n 
Western aesthetics adop ted taste as o n e of the basic no t ions is symbol ic : it 
was not the power of the object bu t the apprec ia t ive a t t i tude of pe r son which 
was the basic e lement for this aesthetic. It is unsu rp r i s ing tha t u n d e r such 
influence people have forgot ten the pr imi t ive v ividness of visuali ty. 
19 The intransitive (spontaneous) verb of the four other senses are: mieru (sight), kikoeru 
(hearing), kaoru/niou (smell), and sawaru (touch). 
170