I think you should clarify what you mean in this post because it seems like you're on to something, but I'm confused as to what.
If you're saying you think art historians shouldn't sit around like assholes reading into every dot and line, I think I have to agree with you.
My current art history teacher seems to make things up on the spot (out of his butthole, that jerk), and it's really obnoxious.
But, since I've been moving into nonrepresentational and "obsessive" art I've begun to understand the mindset of people like Pollock. The idea of just getting it out getting it out getting it out, whatever IT is...which I think we've talked about and agreed on before.
I do think though, that Pollock may have been free of painting with a pretentious purpose, if that makes sense. I think that, like me, he may paint something and then decide later on whether or not it's coming from anywhere outside of pure visual elements.
Anyway, I think that this response isn't what you were getting at at all, but these are some things I've been thinking about recently.