And I also agree that sometimes too much is written to give credence to what is ultimately empty work (and this is definitely true of much minimalism and postmodernism). But the content of Abstract Expressionism still rings true to me, and I believe all that I wrote (although, as I said, it took me some years to see things that way). Just because Pollock did not write about the use of line, planes, etc. doesn't mean that those ideas weren't important in his work. He was notoriously non-verbal.
As for elaborate interpretations of art, check out all the volumes that have been written about Michelangelo and Botticelli involving various levels of theory about their work, including neoplatonic interpretations of the Medici Chapel and Primavera. Many times the artists may not write (or even discuss) these ideas, but others see them, and I think that if artworks can be read on several levels, so much the better. 
Have you seen any Pollocks in person? The larger ones are quite energizing, and that's the only way to really see them. I don't think all his works are great, but One and the others of that ilk are awesome.
I knew I would get some disagreement from you. We can always continue this debate....ad infinitum. That's what makes FR such a fun place.