Iconology as practice of interpretation can be inﬂ uenced by images in return. This happens when material (a work of art) has a pronounced rhetoric program, i. e. is particurlarly spectator-oriented, so the spectator is seen as target of educating or enlightening. This is typical for Renaissance artistic practice. Here one can see the main aspect of inﬂ uencing the spectator — archaic sacredness, modernized with the help of Christian reiterated interpretation. E. Gombrich ﬁ nds the way of neutralizing this Прот. Стефан Ванеян. Гомбрих и Винд: ритуалы и мистерии в науке об искусстве... inﬂ uence on the spectator, stressing in the scientiﬁ c text as it is possibilities of critical but fully conventional building of interpretation. This may resemble some sacral rituals though rather scientiﬁ c as they impose restrictions on fantasy and put the content of interpretation within the limits of veriﬁ able communication. E. Wind, in turn, criticises G’s methodological program, stressing that any contact with archaic sacredness, even though in it’s visual reproduction, is a revival of the mysterial essence of this kind of images.The only solution is discovering in a scientiﬁ c text its poetic functions that support the activity and, as a result, independence of the spectator-interpreter.
iconology, hermeneutics, problem of veriﬁ cation, Renaissance, neopla- tonism, archaic sacredness, science as communication and ritual, mysterial character of visual contacts with an
1. Wind E. Pagan Mysteries in the Renaissance, New Haven, 1958.