This paper is based on the hypothesis that Klibansky is an “iconologist of concepts” (rather than just an historian of ideas). This exploratory hypothesis is of twofold interest. In the first place, it helps to overcome the too frontal opposition between words and images. If these are undoubtedly different symbolic entities, they can also sometimes share common “behaviors”. Secondly, this hypothesis has the benefit to focus on the most dynamic aspects of Iconology. By following such an approach, the iconological method will disclose its critical meaning: Iconoly would not be defined in its capacity to explain definitively (and therefore fix) visual entities, but rather in its capacity to describe movements, exchanges and reversals (whatever the symbols it bears). In other words, concepts could be the subject of a specific iconology, because they are bound to the movements of culture: migration – circulation – hybridation. In this respect, Klibansky’s work indicates an alternative path for iconology, which could be redefined not according to its objects, but as a method describing transformation effects of patterns.