We have already seen—in chapter 2—the first truly contemporary theorization of the central role of images in a political economy: Marie-José Mondzian's account of Byzantine iconoclasm, outlined in an essay of 1989 and set out fully in her book Image, Icon, Economy; The Byzantine Origins of the Contemporary Imaginary (1996). There, she exercised a characteristic restraint in hinting at but not coining the neologism “iconomy” as the general term for her subject. Writing during the first Gulf War, however, she does not refrain from asserting the current relevance of her project, not only in her subtitle but also in statements such as this: “From the specific standpoint of provoking belief or obtaining obedience, there is no great difference between submitting to a church council or to CNN.”

In 1992, Jean-Joseph Goux spoke of “a new ‘iconomy’” to highlight the extraordinary financial values attaching to works of art in the contemporary art market. In the same year, a more comprehensive contemporary theorization, entirely immersed in current problematics, was attempted. Arizona University graduate student Dion Dennis embarked on a project entitled The Subject Under the Sign of the Market: Steps Toward a Political Iconomy. In a 1993 essay, he defined it as follows: