The best thing that I can say about that is to ignore those pretentious art school yuppies/hipsters. People like that feel a need to label and analyze EVERYTHING, even when there's nothing there to analyze.
To my eyes the whole "maker" concept is exactly that. If you like making stuff, awesome, but don't pretend it somehow makes you better than people who don't.
Also massive confirmation bias for people who blog. Who knows what non-blogger-makers are like.
The novelty of doing something that appears to be 'new' can blind you to the fact that people have been doing it for millions of years. The only difference is that you now can blog.
I don't mind people who analyse everything. It's great that there are people who know why processes are how they are.
I dislike the amount of "post rationalisation" that goes with arts critique. See the movie "Room 237"[1] as a great example of this. Some of them sound reasonable, and make sense. And some of them just sound ridiculous, and tenuous, and make very little sense. And because Kubrick is dead and didn't tell us what he meant there's little way for us to know if these people's imaginings about his film are in any way correct or not.
I tend to go a bit too far the other way. I know someone who, when at school and asked "Why did that character do that thing?" would answer "because that's what the author wrote" which is correct, but not what an English comprehension teacher wants to hear.
I disagree, their pretentious 'what are your influences' discussion caused the author to analyze what his influences are.
That analysis clashed with the students' initial reaction.. but this is very far from your statement "there's nothing there to analyze".
I don't agree that there is never anything to analyze, but I do agree that it is not necessary to always analyze things. The "art school yuppy" analyzes everything because that is the only thing they know how to do. You don't critique a critique, so being on the analyzing side of art is safe.
But this post in particular was a nice contrast with that, a defence of not having to analyze one's own design influences.