This essay introduces the notion of the system as developed through an interpretation of Dominic McIver Lopes’s theories and presents its different manifestations. Accordingly, this notion is not Lopes’s own explicitly formulated view, but rather the authors’ interpretation and part of a broader project to determine the place of the image in his writings. The research literature shows that previous approaches have mainly addressed systems of representation and the domains of art and non-art. The authors’ focus on the views of a contemporary philosopher working in analytic philosophy, together with their particular emphasis on the notion of system, therefore constitutes a novel approach and opens new horizons for the discussion. The data are drawn from several works by Lopes and from selected thinkers within the same intellectual tradition. The research method is analytical, and data were collected through library research. The central question is: What are the systematic manifestations of Lopes’s views, and how can they be characterized? The hypotheses are, first, that some manifestations center on the image, whereas others extend beyond the domain of the image while remaining applicable to it; and second, that they operate at two levels, classical and progressive. The findings identify the following manifestations: systems of recognition; systemic instructiveness and efficacy; artistic forms as systems; genre and style as systems; systemic pictorial value; system-oriented perception; the transmission of human agents’ judgments on the basis of system-oriented perception realized within a social system; and systems of theorizing. These manifestations can further be understood through a classical conception of system centered on the audience and a progressive conception centered on agency, which encompasses the audience and extends beyond it. This essay examines how the term system can be defined when the focus is on the place of the image in Lopes’s approach. Lopes himself does not provide an explicit definition of system, nor does he clearly state that he is developing such a notion. Rather, the notion of system emerges from the authors’ interpretation of his published writings as a whole. Its different aspects and manifestations, as well as its fundamental character, are therefore interpretive constructions derived from the authors’ reading of Lopes. By system, the authors mean a set of elements that, through the relations among them, can be identified as a structured whole. This deliberately broad conception is adopted because various understandings of system can be extracted from Lopes’s views. The first section shows how pictorial representation exists within a systemic framework. The second explains how images can be instructive within such a framework. The third, divided into three subsections, focuses on artistic form: the first describes artistic form as a perceptual kind; the second clarifies its systemic relations; and the third examines the interrelation between artistic form and genre. The fourth section shows that value and evaluation are realized within a systemic context. The fifth presents perception as a relational act. The sixth focuses on aesthetic judgment as an experiential phenomenon realized and transmitted within a system. The seventh shows how Lopes’s framework for theorizing entails movement between different levels of systems. Finally, the last section explains how the notion of system itself, together with its manifestations discussed throughout the essay, can be understood at two levels. The study is based on an interpretation and analysis of Lopes’s views, with the aim of explicating the notion of system in his research. Its structure emphasizes his theories of images while demonstrating that some of these theories concern images specifically, whereas others, although addressing broader matters, can also be applied to images. Although the essay is informed by the place of the image in Lopes’s long-term approach, it does not attempt to explain that place as a whole. Instead, the pictorial domain serves as the basis for explicating the notion of system. The sources include a number of Lopes’s books and articles, together with selected major thinkers generally associated with analytic philosophy. The overall procedure consisted of studying Lopes’s published writings, interpreting and extracting the different aspects that determine the place of the image in his work, and finally classifying and articulating the manifestations of system as one dimension through which that place can be understood. Thus, the methodology rests on a key claim: the notion of system presented here is the result of the authors’ study, interpretation, and analysis of Lopes’s work, rather than a notion explicitly defined or presented by Lopes himself. This distinction is methodologically important because it prevents the essay from attributing to Lopes a terminology or theoretical architecture that he does not endorse. The argument instead reconstructs a systematic pattern across his writings and uses that reconstruction as an interpretive framework for examining images, perception, value, artistic practice, agency, and theorizing. In this sense, system functions as a concept introduced by the authors rather than as a quotation from Lopes.