[SueveDobe]

It certainly detracted from the work's spiritual authenticity for me. Maybe I'm being over-sensitive. Not at all! You've hit the nail on the head.

Iconographers are not artists giving free rein to their creativity, but work as instruments in service to the Church and her teachings. They are the visual equivalent of the hymnographers - a hymnographer uses his musical and literary talent to produce works which express and proclaim what the Church teaches. A finished icon does not "belong" to the iconographer in the sense of "intellectual property", nor to the patron who commissioned it. Some try to argue that the inscriptions "by the hand of (name of iconographer)" is not a true signature, and therefore permissible. I, and many others, find this quite unacceptable, as it still speaks of individuality and drawing attention to oneself, rather than the humility of anonymity and the corporate nature of Orthodox worship and devotional practice.

Just as an iconographer should not sign his work, there should also be no reference to the patron who commissions an icon (including those painted on the walls of churches) painted on the icon itself. Anonymity cuts both ways - the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. If the iconographer is prevailed upon to inscribe such an acknowledgement, this should be as limited and discreet as possible: the inscription should be in a bottom corner, the lettering small enough that it is not legible from the distance the icon is normally viewed from, and the wording should be limited to "Offering of (name of patron)" or "In memory of (name)", nothing more. No prominent panels surrounded by a fancy border, no grand language extolling the munificence of the patron. This grumpy old woman cringes every time she sees such a thing ....

Crispin, I, too, would be interested in seeing the work you found distracting. Any chance of providing the link?