As a newcomer to digital photography, I certainly couldn't comment with authority on the technical achievement of the photograph. But I'd say that since Gursky, I don't know how there can be 'too much going on with [any] photo' - at least not one in which there is so much that coheres in terms of the subject and space as this one. I'm not trying to say it's a great photo, as I don't have a clue what makes a great photo, but I certainly don't see how business or complexity (I'm not sure which term applies best here) reduces the value of the work. In fact, the business or complexity of the image is, I think, a real strength. The presence of a dead tree might diminish the picture's standing on conventional photographic compositional terms, but as an intrusion of death at the margin, I think it's quite powerful.
The point that lies behind these comments is this:
the fact that a photograph doesn't fit easily with photographic convention - here, typical conventions of landscape format - isn't reason to underestimate its achievement as a photograph, or a work of art. The history of 20th century photography show us this...