No, "reprehensible to look at" is not grammatically correct in standard English.Why it's incorrect"Reprehensible" is an adjective meaning "deserving blame or criticism" (e.g., "His actions were reprehensible"). It describes moral wrongness, not appearance.

The phrase "to look at" is an infinitive phrase acting as a modifier, typically used with adjectives that describe sensory or aesthetic qualities (e.g., "beautiful to look at," "ugly to look at," "pleasant to look at").

Pairing "reprehensible" (a moral judgment) with "to look at" (a visual/perceptual context) creates a category mismatch. It doesn't make semantic sense—something can't be "blameworthy to look at" in the same way it can be "beautiful to look at." This results in awkward, non-idiomatic English.

Grammatically, the structure is parseable (adjective + infinitive phrase), but it's semantically invalid, which often renders it ungrammatical in practice.Correct alternativesIf you mean something is morally offensive in appearance (e.g., shocking or disturbing):"Repulsive to look at"

"Hideous to look at"

"Disturbing to look at"

"Offensive to the eye"

If you mean the act of looking is morally wrong:"It is reprehensible to look at [something]."

Example fix:

Incorrect: "The scene was reprehensible to look at."

Correct: "The scene was repulsive to look at." (if focusing on visuals)

or "It was reprehensible to look at the scene." (if the looking itself is blameworthy).

Explain semantic invalidity further

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5796817&forum_id=2Ã#49423715)