The assumption here is that KLebansky is an “iconologist of concepts” (rather than just a historian of ideas). This exploratory hypothesis is of dual interest. First, it makes it possible to overcome the overly frontal opposition from the word and image, which are undeniably different symbolic entities in their nature, but which may also sometimes have common ‘behaviours’. Secondly, that hypothesis appears to have the advantage of focusing on the most dynamic aspects of iconology. Taken in this way, the iconological method would take on its critical meaning: it does not define itself in its ability to explain definitively (and thus fix) visual entities, but rather in its ability to describe movements, exchanges and returns (irrespective of the symbols to which it relates). In other words, concepts could be subject to specific iconology because they are in turn subject to cultural movements: migration — circulation — hybridisation. Taken in that sense, KLebansky’s work provides an alternative route for iconology, which would be defined not by its objects, but as a method of describing transformation effects in the motives.