While Tertullian's writings are of interest for contextual/historical reasons, he is not numbered amongst the Church Fathers - he ended his life as a heretic (and it was no small error - Montanism), and the bad tendencies of his thought which led him in that way are quite apparent even during his (technically) "Orthodox years."
I think sometimes Orthodox "apologists" in their zeal to differentiate Orthodoxy from Roman Catholicism, err by excess, and say things they really ought not to, or give grand over simplifications. One of these, is the grand over-simplification that Orthodoxy knows no sort of "doctrinal development." I think what is more true, is to say that the development in doctrine and praxis which occured in Orthodoxy was not conceptual, but in the realm of giving things clearer definition (as in excluding certain erroneous ways of thinking), and more efficaciously expressing truths of revelation both in word and in deed (thus the developments which occured in the liturgical services.)
Thus, it is obviously true that the formalities surrounding the reverencing of Icons, or their relative importance in the praxis of the Church ("the way we pray", particularly in the liturgy of the Church), did grow and develop. I think it's also fair to say that after the disputes of the Iconoclasts, the place of Icons in the life of the faithful was somewhat "underlined", because of the important doctrines implied by them. This however, is different from the conceptual development which occured in Roman Catholicism. The images of Christ, the Cross, and the Saints have always been venerable, and venerated by the faithful; even if this eventually became a bigger part of the "devotional life" than it perhaps would have been in earlier times, or if it was only with time that the conventions surrounding formal Iconography developed (though the prototypes for certain Icons, like those of Christ or the Theotokos, are in fact quite old, and in fact Apostolic)...all of that it is irrelevent. However, entire concepts like "purgatory" or "universal juristiction of the Pope" or "indulgences", etc. etc. ... these are all conceptual developments, innovations which do not find their origin in the universal and apostolic faith, much less matters that could ever be transformed into "dogmas."
Thus, the relative poverty of the early Church, joined to perhaps less of an emphasis on such things as a result (and certainly since it was not challenged), would mean you're not going to see Christian Temples all over the place, let alone ones decked out in Iconography - though it certainly did exist to a degree in most permanent Temples, even if they were simple, appropriated places like a hidden chapel in a house, or a crypt in the catacombs (where in fact some relatively "elaborate" iconography has been found.)