I am wholly unintrigued, unimpressed, and a little annoyed by it, mostly the result of the pop-up explanations and the announcement that "everything about the painting is symbolic." (Really Mr. Mcnaughton? If you hadn't put symbolic in bold, I might have missed that completely.)
In reply to #6: It's too literal for me. Frizzyperm's interpretation could easily become one reaction to the piece, I think by the very fact (like he says) that it isn't the intention of the artist almost heightens the potential for the thing to be ridiculed.
On the other hand, I certainly wouldn't call this painting a "work of pure genius." The reason it seems to portray everything described in Frizzyperm's analysis is likely more due to the fact that artist lacks any sense of creativity or genius, and is fairly simple-minded (and maybe a little overtly humble/self-righteous).
Artistic geniuses do not tend to provide explanation by means of literal translation in direct response to criticism.