于润生丨Image Acts of the Virgin of Vladimir

In contemporary discourse, image often conjures up an association of iconic artworks carefully preserved within the confines of museums. These painted creations, safeguarded within various institutions, patiently await their audience. This suggests a dichotomy between subject and object, where a non-utilitarian aesthetic attitude is employed for the appreciation of images. This paradigm also forms the foundation of art historical narration. However, the limitation of this framework has gradually revealed itself as the domain of art historical writing has expanded. The artistic perspective not only constrains a comprehensive understanding of images but also struggles to address the influx of novel issues arising from the “pictorial turn”. Phenomena situated at the peripheries of art historical narratives have started to stimulate fresh avenues of thought.

One such category is the icon, which may serve as a compelling example. In Russian art history, icons are at the genesis, considered as a pre-modern artistic concept intricately linked with the tradition and form of paintings. But in the purview of art history, analyses of style, concepts, and historical dimensions have only been able to explain certain aspects of its imagery. Icons should not be reduced merely to aesthetic objects nor passively consumed visual materials; rather, they should be incorporated into discussions within the realm of images endowed with specific functions. Prior to delving into this discourse, it is imperative to underscore that the principal disparity between icons and modern artworks resides in the fact that modern artistic conceptions like “originality”, “authorship”, “reproduction” and “author” do not apply when analyzing icons. Icons undergo continuous use, wear, modification, and transcription (replication) within religious practices, and with the passage of time, their physical attributes, visual forms, and spatial locations change. In other words, icons are active, typically plural and moving images. They appear, move, undergo re-imagination, replication, and disappearance in the forms of miracles and collections, transcending the boundaries of traditional art history. Using the highly venerated Russian icon, Virgin of Vladimir(Владимирская икона Божией Матери, Figure 1) as a case, this paper aims to analyze its acts and the theory of image acts (Bildakte).

1

The artwork Virgin of Vladimir, currently held within the Tretyakov Gallery in Moscow, is one of the most historically, artistically, and religiously valuable Russian icons. Within art history, this icon is deemed a masterpiece possessing unparalleled uniqueness and authenticity. Originating in the early 12th century, the icon went through multiple restorations. Initially measuring 78 × 54.6 cm, it was painted on two wooden panels using tempera technique. The painted figures are situated on a gesso (“levkas”) layer atop linen fabric, while the background is directly applied onto the wooden surface. The dimensions were later expanded to 104 × 69 cm. The reverse side of the icon features the early 15th century Altar and Instruments of the Passion (Престол и орудия страстей). Studies indicate that the painted figures have undergone various repairs of differing scales, notably in the 13th and 15th centuries, and in 1514. Much of the proportions we see today were established in the 1514 restoration. Only the facial features of two figures remain from the 12th-century original; slight alterations were made in the positions of hands and the sizes of heads. The icon’s current appearance is a result of restoration in 1919. It is noteworthy that the icon was not frequently displayed directly to viewers, instead being covered by an ornate cover (oklad) or vestment (riza) intricately crafted from precious metals and gemstones. These valuable materials elevated the icon into a representation of the patrons’ piety and national wealth, though this often made it a target for coveting, looting, and theft.

Scholarly consensus places the creation of the Virgin of Vladimir in the late 11th or early 12th century, with it being transported from Byzantium to Russia in the first half of the 12th century. It found a home in a Vyshhorod monastery near Kiev. In 1155, historical chronicles recorded the icon’s presence: Andrey Bogolyubsky (Андрей Боголюбский) brought the icon to Vladimir, a city located on the Klyazma River, and in 1161 it was enshrined in the newly constructed Dormition Cathedral, after which it took on the name of the city. Over the subsequent eight centuries, the icon remained a sacred item of both the Russian state and the church, housed in prominent cathedrals. In the aftermath of the October Revolution at the end of 1918, during a period of societal secularization and change, the Commission for the Disclosure and Preservation of Monuments of Ancient Russian Painting (Комиссии по раскрытию и сохранению памятников древнерусской живописи) undertook restoration work on the icon. In 1926, the icon was placed in the Historical Museum, and in 1930, it was transferred to the Tretyakov Gallery, where it remains to this day. In 1999, amid a resurgence of religious activities in Russia, the gallery repositioned the icon within the Saint Nicholas Church in Tolmachi (Храм св. Николая в Толмачах), affiliated with the gallery, allowing museum visitors and believers access to the revered artifact.

Viewers can discern various aspects of the icon—its type, form, and themes. The depicted Virgin of Vladimir belongs to the Eleusa (Елеуса) type of icons, with tenderness, gentleness, and compassion. The term “Eleusa” derives from the Greek word Ελεούσα, meaning merciful in English (Xu, 2012, pp. 100–101). It is also referred to as the “Sweetly Kissing (Virgin)” (сладко лобзающая) (Колпакова, 2004, p. 405) style by some scholars. In this image, the Virgin Mary supports the Christ Child with her right hand, while embracing or gently touching her chest with her left hand. Their cheeks press affectionately against each other, expressing the Virgin Mary’s love for her Son. This type of icon features the Virgin Mary directing her gaze towards the Christ Child’s head. The Christ Child’s left hand, instead of encircling the Virgin’s neck, drapes over her shoulder, thus being obscured by her mantle. In terms of the composition, the figures partially overlap, imbuing the scene with greater dynamism and emotional expression compared to types like the Orans (Оранта), Sign (Знамение), and Hodegetria (Одигитрия). Kondakov (Н.П. Кондаков) suggests that the Eleusa type emerged as a more ornate and relatively later development from the Hodegetria type, embodying greater spirituality in the subtle expressions conveyed between the Virgin’s brows (Кондаков, 1914). According to Lazarov (В.Н. Лазарев), the Eleusa type originated and gained popularity in late 11th-century Byzantine art (Лазарев, 1978). From a formal perspective, the image presents a more intricate composition of the figures; the theme of mother and child embracing in a sidelong manner introduces more complex bodily dynamics and spatial relationships compared to types like the Sign and Hodegetria. Despite undergoing multiple repaintings over the centuries, the facial features of the two figures still retain the original 12th-century style. The use of a three-quarters frontal perspective, finely detailed features, soft tones, and chiaroscuro technique imparts a distinct sense of volume and depth. Notably, the close contact of the mother and child’s cheeks and the Christ Child’s left hand embracing the mother’s neck showcase a visual realism that is less stylized and more three-dimensional. The facial expressions of the figures effectively convey their inner emotions. The Virgin Mary gazes directly outward, slightly furrowing her brow. Shadows and highlights (оживка) at the brow, temple, and bridge of the nose indicate the elevation of the T-zone. Delicately drawn lines define the contours of the eyes, cleverly merging with the transitions between light and shadow on the cheeks. With closed lips forming a slight downward arc, a sense of sorrow is intensified.

The Virgin of Vladimir is regarded as a quintessential piece of art from the Byzantine Komnenian Dynasty era, serving as an exemplar for 12th-century northeastern Russian art (Колпакова, 2004; Лифшиц, 2000). A stylistic comparison, however, reveals that it lacks the linear characteristics of the Komnenian royal art. The two figures within the painting exhibit distinct features, with Jesus’s visage displaying more pronounced sculptural and painterly qualities. Lazarov labels this attribute as Impressionistic and Aristocratic (Лазарев, 1978). Examples that share stylistic resemblance to the facial features of Jesus in this icon can be found in the mosaic, Lord’s Entry Into Jerusalem (late 11th century), from the Daphni Monastery in Greece depicting a child (Figure 2), in the faces of women depicted in the Palatine Chapel’s mosaic, The Resurrection of Tabitha (mid-late 12th century), and the crypt fresco, Virgin and Child (mid-late 12th century, Figure 3), in Palermo. These instances, alongside the Virgin of Vladimir, underscore the art of the Komnenian Dynasty as an artistic tradition that both “inherits the glorious traditions of the Macedonian period” and maintains a character of “formalism rooted in convention” (Vasiliev, 2019, p. 764). They represent what is referred to in art history as the second golden age of Byzantine art and a part of the 12th-century Renaissance. Similar stylistic characteristics can also be observed in the Palaeologan art in the Byzantine empire. For instance, the mosaic Deesis in the Hagia Sophia (1261) and The Fresco Eleusa in the narthex of the Chora Church (1320–1321) both exhibit comparable styles. This classical style bridges the gap between Byzantine art and its connections to the ancient and modern, demonstrating resilience in the face of the continuity and revival of challenges such as iconoclasm, Crusader invasions, and the Latin Empire. As Lazarov aptly stated, “The Hellenic tradition never died within the Byzantine soil” (Лазарев, 1978, p. 12).

While the icon has undergone numerous modifications, the theme of the Eleusa type on the front side is unmistakably clear. According to tradition, this type of icon is believed to have originated from the hand of the Gospel of Luke (Сказание о чудотворной иконе Богоматери, именуемой Владимирскою, 1849). Compared to other types of Virgin Mary icons, the Eleusa type appears less solemn, emphasizing the intimate bond between mother and child, with a distinct sense of intimacy. This emotion serves as a bridge between the divine and worldly realms, constituting the foundation and assurance of redemption. The image on the back of the icon, depicting the Altar and Instruments of the Passion, metaphorically alludes to Christ’s sacrifice or atonement. Mary’s conception of Jesus through the Holy Spirit exemplifies the complete fusion of divinity and humanity, representing the unseen Logos united with humanity. This hidden Logos is manifested and transformed into a visible image in the hypostatic union. Jesus’s earthly life is the necessary process through which the Logos is visually revealed to humanity, illustrating that this faith needs not only to be conveyed through words but also through visual means. Therefore, Luke’s depiction of the image not only represents the physical form but also symbolizes the doctrine of the Incarnation. This interpretation safeguards those who depict and venerate icons from accusations of idol worship, as the images they depict and revere, just like the bodily form of Jesus, serve as pathways to the Divine (Pfeiffer, 2005). These doctrines, mediated through the classicized visual form discussed earlier, allow the viewer to more deeply experience the love between mother and child and recognize that this love also symbolizes the close connection between humanity, the Church, and God. 

In conclusion, considering its type, form, and themes, the Virgin of Vladimir is undeniably a significant work of art with multiple layers of meaning. Its uniqueness and authenticity mandate that it be preserved within museums like other masterpieces, dissociated from utilitarian functions. However, this perspective contradicts the fact that it is also a religious sacred item used in worship ceremonies within churches, thus worshipped by the faithful. This duality challenges the relationship between the icon and its broader historical context and limits our understanding of its nature as an image.

2

In the realm of art history, a detached and contemplative aesthetic perspective is traditionally adopted to situate images in a passive position relative to the active subject. Consequently, the analysis from an artistic standpoint often reveals only one facet of the nature of the Virgin of Vladimir, obscuring other aspects and failing to elucidate the myriad phenomena associated with this sacred icon. It would be inspiring therefore to endow this icon with agency, regarding it as a subject that intervenes in historical practice through the mode of image act, wherein the image is not the “words” but a “speaker” (Bredekamp, 2016, p. 39). This perspective looks into the interactions between the icon and various other historical factors, enabling a nuanced analysis of the functions and values inherent in its image act. In analyzing image acts, the key is to realize an icon surpasses the realm of artistry and possesses distinct qualities and capabilities from those of traditional artworks. The Virgin of Vladimir manifests an intrinsic vitality through its appearance, act, replication, movement, and even disappearance. Accounts concerning the replication and movement of the icon envelop individuals, historical facts, institutional systems, and events within multifaceted material and formal dimensions, transcending temporal and spatial constraints. And these attributes of agency find expression in many renowned icons.

 Firstly, on a material level, the Virgin of Vladimir is not a singular but a plural image; it is an atlas. Though thought to be the work of Saint Luke, the icon was “not painted by the saint himself, but rather painted in a fashion that adheres to the tradition established by the saint. In other words, this icon is a replica of an image created by the saint” (Лосский & Успенский, 2014, p. 151). This suggests that this icon, considered an “original” from an art historical perspective, shares the same status as a series of other copies. The “original” has undergone continuous repainting and recovering, featuring images from different time periods (Анисимов, 1983, p. 236). Transcending temporal and spatial dimensions, this plurality challenges the modern aesthetic concept of singularity and authenticity, presenting itself as an atlas. On this basis it can exercise agency on behalf of the absent subject in a broader context.

According to historical accounts, the icon came with the image miraculously imprinted acheiropoieton (literally, “image made without hands”), the handiwork of saints, and underwent continuous replications and reproductions because of its efficacy. It was exchanged, traded, looted and stolen, and at times, even disappeared—these were often shrouded in mysticism and recorded as “miracles” in legends. Notably, although from a historical materialist perspective, these legends about the miracles associated with the icon may seem superstitious, and the veneration of images contradicts the Church’s stance against idolatry, these superstitions not only entered historical narratives in the form of images but also circulated widely among believers in oral or written texts, becoming an integral part of their faith and exerting an historical impact. In religious and historical practices, superstitious accounts of the miracles and the images and text records of these beliefs have persisted for a long time. In examining these accounts, to avoid the dilemma between faith and empirical evidence, it is important to adopt the perspective of semiotic existentiality, i.e. a behavioral perspective, to look at these images. Only in this way can one understand the prevalence of icon worship within the context of Eastern Orthodoxy and the nature of icon-images

The Virgin of Vladimir icon has exhibited miraculous effects on both personal lives and major political events throughout different epochs, profoundly influencing human act and altering the course of history. A 12th-century document entitled The Legend of the Miraculous Virgin of Vladimir(Сказание о чудесах Владимирской иконы Божией Матери) catalogues ten miracles attributed to the icon during the lifetime of Andrey Bogolyubsky. These miracles encompassed saving drowning individuals, rescuing pregnant women from startled horses, curing withered hands, facilitating two difficult childbirths, dispelling witchcraft, twice healing heart ailments, restoring sight to the blind, and rescuing individuals trapped beneath collapsing buildings. Subsequently, these accounts were incorporated into another 16th-century document titled, The Legend of the Virgin of Vladimir(Сказание о Владимирской иконе Божией Матери). Furthermore, chronicles from the 12th century onwards also documented additional miracles attributed to this icon. Despite the Enlightenment challenging people’s faith in supernatural forces in the 18th century, the belief in icon miracles persisted until the 20th century. Research indicates that post-12th-century records of icon miracles include events such as subduing the Bulgars, quelling the Vladimir uprising, repelling multiple Tatar invasions, and mitigating political crises (Bakatkina, 2017).

Comparing these miracles in terms of their subjects, efficacy, methods, and locations, three notable characteristics emerge. First, early legends recorded ten miracles that primarily impacted individual lives. In contrast, later accounts of miracles predominantly affected political figures, church leaders, or entire populations, emphasizing their political significance. Second, early miracles were often through non-contact methods like prayer, vows, or direct physical contact such as holding or drinking the holy water from the icon. Conversely, the latter miracles were often through prayers and processions involving the icon. Third, most of these miracles were associated with specific documented locations. The first two characteristics suggest that people believed in the icon’s power to transcend social hierarchies and the scope of individuals affected, whether through physical or spiritual connections. The third one indicates that these miracles were believed to be spatially constrained, occurring at specific geographical locations.

In close proximity to the Virgin of Vladimir, two other revered icons within the Russian Orthodox tradition are the Virgin of Kazan (Казаньская икона Божией Матери) and the Virgin of Smolensk(Смоленская икона Божией Матери). According to legend, the former manifested in Kazan in the aftermath of a fire in 1579, hence the name. It was associated with the miraculous restoration of sight to the blind when it first appeared, leading Ivan IV to order the construction of a dedicated monastery for its veneration. Subsequently, during the resistance against the Polish invasion and the recovery of Moscow in 1612, the icon demonstrated miracles, further solidifying its widespread veneration. It underwent multiple replications and reproductions, with numerous copies. Special churches were erected to house this icon in both Moscow and St. Petersburg, exemplified by the Kazan Cathedral in St. Petersburg. Throughout the 19th century, the theme of the Virgin of Kazan frequently appeared in Russian art works. In 1904, the icon housed in Kazan was stolen, and although the thieves were apprehended, the icon itself was tragically destroyed. Some legends, however, suggest that the stolen and destroyed version was merely a replica, while the original remains missing.

The Virgin of Smolensk is similarly regarded as Saint Luke’s work and was brought to Russia as a gift during the Kievan Rus’-Byzantine princely marriages in 1046. It became an esteemed sacred item in the Rurik dynasty and was placed in Smolensk in 1095, hence its name. In the 15th century, the icon was briefly relocated to Moscow but was returned to Smolensk in 1456. Legend has it that this icon shielded Smolensk from Mongol conquest during the invasion and played a protective and decisive role in Russia’s victory at the Battle of Borodino in 1812. In 1941, during World War II, the icon disappeared, leaving behind numerous copies. The legends and miracles surrounding the two icons share similarities with those of the Virgin of Vladimir. These icons and their replicas moved across different spaces, exercising miraculous agency in both personal lives and political events, exerting influence on individual acts and the course of history.

The concept that miraculous acts are spatially constrained has led to the belief that icons need to move within space to exert greater efficacy, making the movement of icons worthy of attention. At the base of the Virgin of Vladimir lies the traces of a tripartite support structure, indicating that the icon was once affixed to a support as an altar icon (запрестольная икона). It would lead processions during Easter and be positioned at the center of the altar at other times (Bakatkina, 2017). This continues the old tradition of sacred item processions. In the 9th and 10th centuries, during the Byzantine era, there was a tradition of replacing the relics of the Virgin with icons in processions, providing blessings and protection to the faithful (Этингоф, 2000). Similar processions were also common in other parts of Europe (Huizinga, 1997).

It was recorded that icon movement can be categorized into two types. The first is its mysterious appearances and disappearances. Examples include the manifestation and theft of the Virgin of Kazanand the disappearance of the Virgin of Smolensk. These, like various other miracles mentioned earlier, can be explained from both a mystical and a practical perspective. The second is its relocation. Icons are specially housed in churches for veneration, and during festive celebrations, they are honored during processions. Icons are also brought to specific locations or paraded around cities in the hope of invoking miracles. For instance, in 1395, the Virgin of Vladimir was welcomed from Vladimir to Moscow and enshrined in the Cathedral of the Dormition to protect Moscow from the invasion of Timur’s forces. Subsequently, the Grand Duchy of Moscow held icon processions to ward off the Mongols, which also happened during the World War II. Other important icons underwent similar experiences of being relocated for veneration. This indicates that people believed icons were not solely images but possessed a material force, so they had to be constantly moved to exert their full efficacy.

As two complementary acts of icons, atlas and miracles entail plurality and mobility.

From the perspective of atlas, icons of the mother of Jesus, including the Virgin of Vladimir, are part of a larger collection of images, each with its own name. While they can be deconstructed into smaller units, each atlas is also a component of larger units. This means icons as atlas exhibit a fractal structure in their image act, overlapping different spaces in the dimension of time. For instance, the Virgin of Vladimir we see today is an image comprised of different images from various epochs, all layered together within the same visual field (Figure 4).

From the perspective of miracles, the Virgin of Vladimir demonstrates characteristics of cross-domain mobility. As previously mentioned, the Eleusa type of icons, compared to other types, possess a more pronounced intimate quality. Their images are based on the successful expression of intimate emotions between mother and child, symbolizing doctrine. They continually change position and come into contact with more viewers in various forms. The legends of miracles they generate extend from the realm of private life to public political life, earning widespread veneration. In the vast space of their convergence, emotions derived from private life give rise to grander themes, imbuing them with historical significance. As icons of miracles, their image act structure is juxtaposed, placing different times and histories side by side in the spatial dimension. For instance, the Virgin of Vladimirtranscends time and enters numerous cities, churches, and even other icon images (Figure 5).

From the perspective of image act, the Virgin of Vladimir surpasses the art historical significance of a single masterpiece. This icon generates a multitude of miracles in people’s beliefs, interconnecting more icons, histories, and social facts, forming new atlases. Only by recognizing the plurality and mobility of icons’ act can we dynamically and cohesively analyze different images within a structure characterized by fractals and juxtaposition, transcending time and space in a complex, or hybrid context.

3

Once, the Virgin of Vladimir symbolized religious faith, exhibiting miraculous act through atlas. Then in the early 20th century, it faced the upheaval of revolution and the impact of modern aesthetic ideas, which temporarily stripped it of its miraculous attributes, rendering it a museum artifact characterized by uniqueness and authenticity. Today, this icon remains part of a museum collection, while also being reintroduced into a church for religious purposes. So how should we perceive these shifts in image acts within the current context characterized by multiple hybrid domains?

The perceptions of images in religious and artistic contexts are inherently contradictory. From a religious perspective, images are seen as conduits to their prototypes, and differences in form and content between images can be condensed into distinctions between types of icons. Different types of icons visually represent different doctrines, and icons of the same type should be consistent, possessing identical efficacy and receiving similar veneration. From an artistic perspective, icons may exhibit different formal characteristics due to variations in the individual styles, techniques, and media used by different artists. Additionally, icons can change in material form due to environmental factors and their involvement in local historical and social events. In other words, each icon possesses unique value and meaning due to the distinctive features of its image, and historical and geographical factors.

 The Virgin of Vladimir, with its religious and artistic functions, raises questions about whether it reconciles these contradictions, unifying opposing image concepts in religion and art, or if it offers a new perspective on understanding images. It is well-known that the image tradition represented by Russian icons was rejected by modern art in the 18th century, as part of the Westernization process during Peter the Great’s reign when Russia adopted modern Western aesthetic concepts that had developed since the Renaissance. The Italian Renaissance artist Giorgio Vasari stated in the 16th-century that medieval images are crude, and the Byzantine image tradition rough and unrefined. According to him, art needed to discard the coarseness and crudeness of forms in religious art, including the Byzantine tradition, in favor of reviving the elegant classical style (Vasari, 2003). Renaissance art concepts dominated the field of images. From the perspective of image acts, two shifts occurred: first, the weakening of religious function greatly reduced the miraculous acts of images as miracle atlas; and second, images transitioned to passive objects of the aesthetic and visual act, exemplifying ideals of beauty and individual originality.

Currently in the discussion of image acts, the most effective exploration comes from Bredekamp. In his work Theorie des Bildakts (Theory of the Image-Act), he posits three angles through which image acts can be understood: schematic, substitutive, and intrinsic (Bredekamp, 2016), which can also be used to explain the miracle-atlas acts of icons and their passive aesthetic-visual acts. Theoretically, substitutive acts align with the interpretation of icons according to religious doctrine, which demands that the eyes obey the soul and perceive visible images as windows to the invisible objects of faith. Consequently, the form of icons strives to eliminate diverse expressions to ensure the universal effectiveness of the conveyed message, avoiding uniqueness and contingency. However, under this interpretation, images do not possess an independent status or autonomy; different images are deemed equivalent in leading the faithful to the objects of their faith, and they can be reduced to image types. Various symbolic signs can be interchanged; choice is always possible (Nietzsche, 2018). Nevertheless, in the context of the miracle-atlas acts of icons, images continually move, replicate, and conceal their own mediality. While the image is the visible representation of an invisible other, and the visible aspect should theoretically be secondary, in practice, during the process of movement and replication, it acts upon people’s beliefs in a concrete symbolic form, transgressing the sovereignty that theoretically belongs to the other. The reality is that the object of faith cannot be directly presented and must be conveyed through the icon symbolically. In this context, the image as a medium not only ceases being transparent, but also through the miraculous act, usurps the sovereignty that belongs to the otherworldly realm, exerting control over the viewer.。 

In passive visual-aesthetic relationships, images are perceived as precise and authentic projections of visible objects onto human senses. After the Renaissance, anthropocentrism gradually took hold, and advancements in visual technology reinforced the belief in humanity’s capacity to understand the objective world. An aesthetic attitude detached images from the material world and utilitarian purposes, placing them as isolated objects within the domain of art. In this new relationship, art served as a compensatory form to fill the void left by the retreat of faith. Simultaneously, in order to counter philosophical criticisms, particularly those rooted in Platonic ideas, images strived to eliminate suspicions of being mere illusions or idols. They pushed the boundaries of visual techniques to their extremes, leading to the flourishing of representational images that schematically illustrate the objective world. The schema appears to explain the nature of icons, which carry aesthetic value, within the context of human visual act. However, technological advancements have led people to place excessive trust and reliance on the whole illusory spectacle constructed by images (Debord, 2017). The constant overflow of signifiers ultimately erodes the subject’s position in the aesthetic relationship, leading imitating acts to transform into substitutive acts. In other words, it returns to the old path of usurping the sovereignty of the other.

In addition to the two perspectives mentioned above, Bredekamp also identifies a third type of image act characterized by images possessing an inherent form of intrinsic act. While Warburg initially attempted to reveal this type of image act in his analysis of the Pathosformel (pathos formula), he inadvertently turned to historical psychology centered on emotional expression, thereby reverting to a form of substitutive image act. This approach views images as historical, psychological representations with anthropomorphic attributes. Bredekamp, however, emphasizes the recognition of images’ innate right to existence (Bredekamp, 2016). Bredekamp’s emphasis is highly insightful for understanding image acts, but in his explanations of images, he appears to deviate from his original intention by once again categorizing image acts based on image types, rather than diverse acts themselves. Consequently, within his framework of image theory, images continue to be treated as external objects subject to contemplation. This perspective effectively reduces the study of image acts to a form of anthropomorphized rhetoric. Bredekamp employs the Medusa myth to analyze the visual potential of artworks that capture the gaze, explaining visual illusions resulting from lines, colors, and perspective as latent potentials within forms. This perspective transforms images from passive, silent objects into subjects. He also employs Warburg’s approach by regarding art forms, models, and illustrations as symbols representing humanity’s collective psychological means to overcome chaotic fears. It must be noted, however, that Bredekamp’s approach does not fully analyze images from the standpoint of image acts. In the analyses mentioned above, images are treated as mere implications or representations of actions, serving as harbingers or outcomes of actions. This perspective assumes the presence of some external capability, such as human cognitive abilities, divine powers, or a form of anthropomorphic spiritual capability, serving as the “point of view”. Consequently, it only explores the external aspects of images and fails to recognize their intrinsic structures as subjects (Merleau-Ponty, 2018). From this perspective, the study of image acts should focus on the forms, characteristics, and structures of various image acts. These aspects can be exemplified in the analysis of sacred image acts, such as the miracle-collection act, and other potential forms of acts.

As previously discussed, the Virgin of Vladimir encompasses at least four distinct image acts or relationships. Firstly, as a symbol of faith, it engages in miracle acts characterized by mobility and has a juxtapositional structure. Secondly, as a material symbol, it partakes in atlas acts characterized by plurality and has a fractal structure. Thirdly, as an aesthetical object of art, it performs compensatory acts characterized by immobility and has a detached structure. Lastly, as a technique-oriented object of art, it engages in visual acts characterized by singularity and has a perspective structure. These four types of acts broadly encompass what Bredekamp describes as the acts of schematic and substitutive images. However, they differ in that the distinctions presented here are derived from an analysis of the forms, characteristics, and structures of the acts of images. In each of these four dimensions, images have not fully exhibited their innate right to existence. They all function as representations of predetermined external factors—divinity or sentient individuals—therefore, they can be regarded as non-autonomous images, and their acts are passive in nature.

Following this reasoning, autonomous images with the capability for active act should originate from within the image itself, rather than being perceived as representations of something else (Gombrich, 2017). This theoretically autonomous image, endowed with the ability to act, finds a degree of revelation in the contemporary historical context of the Virgin of Vladimir. Before entering the museum, this icon, like others of its kind, did not possess material or image-based authenticity or uniqueness. Its image had not yet been fully separated from its material substrate. Therefore, the image and material shared the agency bestowed by faith, and the image’s act was imbued with materiality, as previously discussed, constrained by spatial limitations. Yet in the early 20th century, this icon transformed into an artwork. The once intertwined material and spiritual values were severed: on one hand, the image was placed in a museum, exclusively enjoying formal value previously shared with other images, becoming the most significant representative among similar icons, and greatly surpassing its material value. On the other hand, museum institutions, through absolute isolation and ritualized cultural customs applied to the material carrier, engendered the peculiar result of formalist fetish. This indicates that institutional and cultural rights continued to control the image’s attempts at agency through capitalization. Even after being relocated to the church, the Virgin of Vladimir has not completely escaped the protection of the museum. The hybrid context of the image has merely been re-simulated within the museum through the spectacularization of the church’s religious settings. In this environment, the image appears to the viewer with a more immersive interactive act, and one could even argue that the viewer enters into the image. Here, the museum-church has exercised dual control over the image’s material attributes, reinforcing the suppression of image act.

It can be assumed that by simulating images through technological means and offering immersive interactive acts that transcend material constraints, it may become possible to achieve autonomous images with active act from within. This assumption has already started to manifest in the latest practices of Artificial Intelligence (AI) images.

AI images inherit factors from both religious icons and art images. They create immersive effects by simulating virtual reality visually, generating a multitude of movable images that deeply engage with viewers. In this context, images are no longer dependent on the representation of others but become independent agents. They satisfy, entice, deceive, persuade, and instruct viewers, internalizing viewers into the image world. This not only fulfills their innate right to existence but also directly asserts their independent sovereignty. The most prominent feature that distinguishes artificial intelligence images from religious icons and art images is that they no longer possess binary relationships that can be differentiated as ideal versus real or goal versus means. In the realm of artificial intelligence images, the image itself is both the goal and the means to achieve that goal. Its ideal is realized within itself.

4

In conclusion, the Virgin of Vladimir is one of the most significant images in Russian religion, art, and history, exhibiting complex image acts on different levels. This icon has shaped the cultural and social life of Russia through its miraculous and collective image acts. Understanding it goes beyond conceiving of it as merely an art masterpiece or a religious sacred item; it requires analysis from a contemporary perspective that considers the hybrid contexts of images. The theoretical significance of this icon lies in its ability to provide a suitable case to refine the theory of image acts and foreshadow the realization of sovereignty in future AI images.

Throughout history, we often see humans continuously creating images while denying the agency of image acts. The assumption that images are not independent and must rely on external factors stems from humanity’s instinctual fear of symbols replacing the subject. In ancient China, legend has it that when Cang Jie invented words (or Chinese characters), grain rained from the skies and the demons were crying at night. In ancient Greece, Memnon warned against the invention of writing, and Semonides recorded the remarkable memory technique of summoning the image of the dead. Literature has depicted the nose that detached itself and replaced the owner (Gogol, 1996). Scholars have pointed out that every invention or technology is an extension or self-amputation of the human body (McLuhan, 2000). These expressions all metaphorically convey the idea that symbols, as artificial media, assume certain human functions while possessing sovereignty over these functions, marking the loss of these functions in the human body. This metaphorizes the relationship between life and death—life has abilities, while the loss of these abilities signifies death. The primal desire to preserve complete life as a fundamental human instinct leads humans to have a demiurge-like complex towards images. They attempt to continue controlling the creations while ignoring the fact that these creations have their own sovereignty. Images have been potential sovereign entities since their inception. They once moved through different times and spaces in the form of icon atlas, and they also served aesthetic purposes through visual technique. Ultimately, images will transform from one to many, spreading across the world. The opportunity to realize these image acts has already arrived in AI technology.

Corresponding author: Runsheng Yu, School of Humanities, Central Academy of Fine Arts,Beijing,China,Email: yurunsheng@cafa.edu.cn

Funding source: Research Funds of Central Academy of Fine Arts

Award Identifier / Grant number: 19KYYB009

Research funding: Research Funds of Central Academy of Fine Arts (19KYYB009).