Interesting interpretation, sir. If I doodle a tree, it doesn't enervate the tree itself. The real co-exists with the copy, and while one might be indistinguishable from the other, the first is not rendered artificial by the production of copies. Obviously, the Godhead is a different manner altogether because the depicted object is not visible, is not proven, and thus, it's face must come from the imagination of man. When all is said and done, the human mind wants a gateway to worship, a face and a body within their realm of comprehension, to make the vague and supernatural more real, as we know real.
Visual aids help.
Familiar, everyday media must be employed, simulation must occur, because the human mind responds well to iconography. Anton LaVey realized this in creating his Church of Satan , as do most politicians and the Church of the Subgenius . Human intellect and human memory are flawed, and medieval philosophers recognized this. While the Iconoclasts did fear that the Christians were making Gods from statues, it was not their God that was being discredited, but new Gods within the Church structure that were false idols. Instead they dismissed these icons as tools of demon worship, and wished to free their church from association with such things.