Do you think Mark intends to somehow portray the Jesus as present in some sense without an actual representation of the risen Jesus? Perhaps present in a manner too powerful or transcendent than could or should be depicted?

Yes, precisely.  Jesus’ presence is being highlighted by his absence if that makes any sense.  The best example I can think of for the power of nonrepresentational images is from Buddhism.  Even if completely unfamiliar with Buddhist philosophy everyone recognizes ** you do not have permission to see this link **.  But the earliest depictions of the Buddha were not iconic.  The Buddha was symbolized by a fully saddled and shod but riderless horse.   An empty throne.  A single footprint.  

The Buddha was tathagata, the “one thus gone”.  It’s like you walk into a room that only a moment before had been occupied by someone.  But they had walked out just before you came in.   Their presence is comprehended only by their absence.  The Buddha is not here anymore.  He’s gone.   

What I’m saying is that the image of the Empty Tomb can function in this way. Jesus isn’t here any more because he’s not dead.  His absence from the grave highlights his presence for the believer.   I suspect Mark had the view that Paul seems to have had.  The Resurrection as an apotheosis.  The risen Jesus appeared in visions.  Only later was the Empty Tomb adapted to support the idea that Jesus woke up and physically crawled out of the grave.   

The analogy is not perfect and I suppose I could press this too far but it does explain why Mark provides no resurrection appearances and ends at 16:8.  The image of the Empty Tomb is the actual denouement of Mark’s gospel.