I take interest in us persons and in our everyday lived lives taking place here in our daily environments. I believe that we persons are always situated through our bodies in a physical context, - although our thoughts may be about situations and places very different and distant from that of our current bodily fixed situationality. I believe that in our thoughts we can move along the time line of past, present, and future while our living bodies always at any given time link us to a particular situationality in the physical world.My essay, having the title of what we see, as contrasted with, what we ought to see, is based on Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s (1908-1961) philosophical position. Merleau-Ponty is a representative of phenomenology. The read line running through my essay is the role of senses as our initial contact with the world, and therefore also the role of the body as a continual attachment to the world in which we live. Thus, Merleau-Ponty reopens the problem of a sense experience after Descartes. Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology of perception includes the sphere of the visual arts as an intertwined aspect of his philosophical position. I will follow in this tradition. Merleau-Ponty discusses the Modern visual arts which were prevailing during his time. I will bring along the Contemporary site-specific and situational artwork since the late 1990s.My essay is divided into three parts. The Part 1, - Casting the Case -, puts forward the underlying big question of this essay, namely what does the situationality, in terms of our bodily existence and our direct bodily contact with the world, have to do with that of having access to something that leads to knowledge about us persons and the exterior world? This question will be further discussed with the help of the guiding question of what do we see. The Part 2, - Contrasting the Case -, takes a step back to the history. In this Part 2 Merleau-Ponty’s view is further contrasted with the traditional theories of empiricism and intellectualism in the Cartesian tradition. The Part 3, - Compromising the Case -, builds a bridge between Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenological position put forward in 1945 and the current day Contemporary site-specific and situational artworks since late 1990s. In the Part 3 my solution for Merleau-Ponty’s wish to unify the spheres of extreme subjectivism and the extreme objectivism discussed in Part 2 is put forward in the light of the Contemporary site-specific and situational artworks.