>>507802076
I agree with the general idea of what you are saying. But there are rules and conventions for a reason.
Of course a novice Iconographer writing his or her first Icons is not going to be perfect, and they will still end up being Icons even if poorly written. However, you said
>So long as it allows you to venerate and peer into the life of Christ, and LOVE HIM AS APPROPRIATE, it is a good icon.
This is a true statement even though you didn't intend it in the way I emphasized, insofar as the conventions and rules exist in order so that you do get the right conveyance from the Icon. Just like in this thread I explained that the form of sacred architecture matters because with symmetry and solidity it conveys the constancy and truth of the Church, the same applies to the form of Holy Icons.
Just ask any professional Iconographer and they will tell you the same thing. We aren't free to make it up as we go along.
I say this all not to beat you over the brow, because you obviously are on the right path. But tradition is important for a reason, and departing from it is 100% always a bad idea, given history. I wouldn't stop appreciating and venerating that ancient Icon you have pictured, but we shouldn't create them today with that style in mind, given we have the proper context and resources that the writers of that Icon didn't at the time.

Picrelated is Holy Iconography in a Nordic church. It has the same idea, but it is also missing fullness. Same thing.