To me, the real victims of over-analysis are the burgeoning artists who think that they have to fill their work with something that can be de-constructed in the first instance. I find it leads to people trying to "second guess" what will be well received, which produces inauthentic photos that often simply ape the work of past masters (and badly). I myself am guilty of this and constantly have to remind myself that I need to be shooting for myself - to make the image that I want and need to see.

This kind of reminds me of two documentaries I recently watched.

The first was on Basquiat. Someone asked him why he drew in the manner in which he did. He seemed honestly not to know and/or care. After thinking about it, he was only able to respond "I don't know any more than I think Miles Davis knows why he plays a certain note in a certain way..."

The second was on Joy Division (the best band the face of this planet has ever known and ever will know). After releasing a poorly-received LP, they claim that they were unable to get a gig for months on end. The result was that they practiced in isolation, without really knowing or caring what other people were doing.

At the end of the day, I think people respond to art that is authentic and whether they choose simply to recognize that on a subconscious level or feel the need to fill a tome with analysis is somewhat after the fact.

Just my $.02. YMMV.