There is no such denial in the depiction, any more than there was in the “Hand of God.”
And I beg to differ that the Rublev icon doesn’t depict the Father, at least that’s not what the article says:
“...they chose to use Andrei Rublev’s Trinity icon as the proper way to depict the Father, Son and Holy Spirit......The first angel wears a blue undergarment, symbolizing the divine nature of God and a purple outer garment, pointing to the Father’s kingship.”
On the other hand, this article below makes some good points (particularly about the Son being the representation of the Father). It ends though with a bit of a fuzzy conclusion about the propriety of such icons:
I would be inclined to view the Russian declaration on this as a valuable stream of thought but not (without an ecumenical council) binding on the entire Christian world.
“And I beg to differ that the Rublev icon doesn’t depict the Father, at least that’s not what the article says:”
The article also says that the 7th Ecumenical Council authorized “representations” of “God”, which it did not. The reason the Council authorized icons of Christ, Panagia, the saints, etc is because they all had (or assumed in the case of angels)a corporeal nature which God sanctified by assuming it Himself in the Son. The Father has not assumed a corporeal nature. Indeed, as the Fathers have taught us, while we share in the human nature of Christ, we cannot share in the divine nature of God.
As for whether or not the Russian view is “binding” on the rest of The Church, well of course it isn’t and at least in the West, never has been. What is binding are the anathemas of the 7th Ecumenical Council which certainly apply to a very large segment of what passes for Christianity in the West.