I'm reading R. Arnheim's "Art and Visual Perception" at the moment, and he starts the book with the same thing you're saying - the pseudo-intellectualism surrounding art nowadays. He basically concludes that all the "smart talk" around art is designed by and for people who don't understand art fundamentals (which the book presents in a layman's language) so they can act like they know what they're looking at. I've seen the same thing in every field, from investment to literature to physical exercise: people who actually know what they're talking about always, always have a simple way of expressing themselves, and vice versa.
The second semi-toxic thing about art is the industry. There are basically no standards to what 'good art' is.
That's why the businesspeople who dictate the industry employ every sales trick in the book successfully - from name-dropping (author's name means a lot) to reverse-engineering value (it's expensive, it must be good) to the FOMO-fashion-trend element, to the FOMO-I have to have this-competition element, to the "elite community" element, to squeezing the "rarity" element (art is unique, like an NFT, so you can sell it at the auction for 40 mil). People buy into that because they don't have the argument why a piece of white canvas cannot, in fact, cost 4 mil. Whereas something like an iPhone, while massively overpriced and overmarketed, still cannot cost 100k. Because it's a phone, and the buyer has standards to what a phone is supposed to be. The iphone is not 200 times better than a huawei.
Now onto the real issue you're talking about: how a painting that a child "could have" painted can be considered a major art achievement. I'm glad you mentioned Pollock, because Arnheim actually used him as an example of "extreme homogeinity in weight" when it comes to the elements in the painting. What is means is that the elements (the yellow ones, the black ones, the red ones) are all very similar in terms of weight. They're distributed evenly across the piece. They have the same "importance", each of these elements. None of them dominate the picture. The exact opposite of this are the paintings of Adam and Eve, where the two figures usually dominate the scene and attract all of your attention.
The "homogenity" technique is used to convey a mood, rather than a message. You look at Adam and Eve and the painting is inviting you to study their faces, bodies, their relations to each other and the surrounding elements. Adam and Eve paintings contain much more specific meaning, which could be put into long sentences and paragraphs.
Whereas the very purpose of these Pollock paintings are simply to convey an emotion. The "meaning" of this painting could be put into one word, like "war" or "late" or "chaos" or whatever else you may feel when looking at it. That's the whole purpose of it. There's nothing to "get."
And that's the very thing pseudo-art-intellectuals don't understand. You don't need to talk about this painting to find its value. You need to look at it, and if you feel something, good. If you don't, whatever, this one's not for you. The more people an abstract painting like that can touch, the higher its value (besides the marketing efforts i mentioned earlier.)
That's why kids from good families listen to SixNine or why I sometimes watch Twilight (actually a decent movie, the first one, lol.) Not for the moral. Not for the meaning. Not for the overused, chiche, template storyline. For the atmosphere, for the emotion.