Firstly, the proposed paper intends to problematise somewhat the categories commonly used in the art history discourse – such, for example, understanding the notion of „public image“. Visual representations of women living in the religious and semi-religious communities widely depended on the rules of clausura (or the lack of it), as well as on their communal and individual understanding and use of the “public space within” the architecture of their religious house. Its parts could be open to wide public, or families, while its accessibility often depended on power and hierarchy – i.e. their socio-economic (or on the other hand purely spiritual) status and relation to the community. In this complex and often individually shaped context we most-commonly encounter the “collective portrait” of the female religious community – often rather than stressing the individuality of depicted women, it emphasizes the identity of entire community – and its individual or specific characteristics. The “one” face of the community in fact represents the individual faces of its members. Yet, the images, as well as material objects in this complex and not black and white setting, served multiple functions and frequently bear a poly-semantic form addressing various agencies and visual strategies – from representation, communication, education, spirituality, power, gender, collective memory etc., to multiple identity strata, while, at the same time reflecting upon the social status of the community, or /and the individual woman. Despite the clausura context, the religious female “space” could very well serve as a “public” one, as some of the visual objects (private or/and in the enclosed areas) intended for “public eyes”, often permeated by noble/courtly influences and agencies that may well be, at first glance, alien or even in the contradiction with the religious environment. How this worked and why such images occur within the religious space, can be understood only by studying the medieval dichotomy between “open” and “closed”, “public” and “private”, “world” and “body”, in a way (religious) women shaped (not necessary portrayed) their own identities, plus the communication strategies and the mutual (visual and semantic) influences between religious, semi-religious and especially male power-dominated secular settings in general.