georges didi huberman, confronti... - lensbased.net

192 Confronting Imagessessed by it in accordance with a relation that, despite any tabooagainst touching the object that might remain in force, expressed itselfmost often in terms of an imprint: in other words in terms of thedivine character, a Greek word that signifies at once the agent and theresult of an imprint, of an engraving. The miraculous icon itself wasnothing other than the ‘‘character of the divine flesh’’ of the Word: 123it thus had the efficacy to transmit its imprint power* to those whovenerated it, and thus in some sense it continued the work of theIncarnation through a process thought before all else in terms of theliturgical sacrament. 124It must be repeated here how this efficacy didn’t work without theimplementation of a work of ‘‘presentability’’ or figure-making† of theimages themselves. The ‘‘Holy Faces’’ that some churches still offerto the devotion of the faithful (Fig. 6) vary infinitely the procedures ofbedazzlement and begleaming—since some frames, besides preciousstones and gilding, are inset with pieces of mirror—and thus repeatnot only the obligatory withdrawal of the vera icona behind the eventof its exposed appearance, but also the dazzling face-to-face of divinizedvisages, that of Moses before the Hebrews and that of Christ lookingdown on his disciples on Mount Tabor, during the apotheosis of hisTransfiguration. 125 We must remember, before these great icons ofChristianity, that from the outset their injunction was situated withinthe legendary element of a face that normal vision had been unableto bear—the icons themselves being considered the sacred remains ofsuch an unbearable. 126 Now how to broach the implementation ofsuch an unbearable, if not by remarking that a visual event—the veryone that gives, repeats, or transforms the dazzling face-to-face—herecomes to take the place of the visible grasp normally expected fromall image exhibitions, and especially from a ‘‘portrait’’?That is why we must attempt a history of images that goes beyondthe strict framework of the history of art inherited from Vasari. Thatis why we must confront the visuality of images—in accordance witha phenomenological movement—prepared to leave behind for a mo-*pouvoir d’empreinte.†faire-figure. Wordplay: figure also means ‘‘face.’’