I saw this same icon at church this morning as well and didn't think very much about it at the time. The more I look at it, though, the more uneasy I am with it. It brings up too many questions and confuses me more than anything. Icons should be simple so as not to confuse simple-minded people like myself! A few thoughts/questions:
1) Why is Our Lord Jesus Christ portrayed here as the father of the prodigal son? It seems to me that the father is meant to represent God the Father. I know that God the Father should not be portrayed in an icon, and I know that we are reunited with the Father only through His Son Jesus, but at the same time I feel like this imagery undercuts and muddles the symbolic meaning of the parable. It's like the artist is trying to interject a theological point into the parable that isn't inherently there.
2) Who are the three angelic figures standing on what appears to be the God's heavenly throne chariot? Are they just angels witnessing this reunion or are they intended to represent the Holy Trinity (a la Andrei Rublev)? If they are just angels, what are they doing on God's heavenly throne chariot? And if they represent the Holy Trinity, is it "okay" (canonical, standard, etc.) to use angels in this way (Rublev notwithstanding)? At any rate, I find the angelic figures distracting because they do not appear in the parable itself in any capacity.
3) Is this depiction an icon, or simply a pictorial of the parable? I would have said that it is not really an icon except that Christ (and maybe even the Holy Trinity) is in the depiction. Does that make it an icon? Even if Christ and the Holy Trinity don't really belong there? If it is considered an icon, is this an icon that one would venerate? It seems to me that we call many things "icons," but they should not necessarily all be treated with the same reverence.
4) In response to Alpo's original query -- as far as I am concerned, NAY! Forgive my ignorance and confusion.
What about this one? Yea or nay?