I'm claiming that Pollock's work demonstrated easily-neglected and valuable parts of the aesthetic experience.

As for evidence against that hypothesis, I think that depends largely upon how seriously you take some of the relevant premises in your wacko's model. According to some, there is virtually nothing to all of culture other than status games (though in this case the clause "despite there being nothing special about his work" would make little sense). According to others, there really is quite a bit to aesthetics, and perhaps it's worth listening to the folks who've spent their lives studying it.

There are a lot of different kinds of things in the world, and many of them are valuable in unexpected ways.