This article pauses and reflects on why Lyotard (who was an avid reader of Levinas) discusses the face in a purely Merleau-Pontyesque context. Thus, in the matter of the face, Lyotard has decisively misappropriated Levinas’s thought. However, I would like to show that the obvious disagreement between Levinas and Lyotard in the issue of the face is, in fact, the result of Lyotard’s deep dedication to Levinas. We attempt to report about Lyotard’s silence on Levinas when he deals with the face; we also try to explain that point of affinity where both authors tell us of the reorganization of rela-tionships between singularity and anonymity by having the heretofore accepted oppo-sites disintegrate. Keeping in mind this weaving of the faithfulness and unfaithfulness of Lyotard to Levinas, we should ask ourselves one more question: is it truly necessary to choose between the shock of the ethical demand and the shock of the senses when dealing with the face? Is it necessary to choose between the “ethical face” that de-mands (Levinas), and the “face-landscape” as a libidinal kidnapping or instinct (Lyo-tard)?