fair enough. i still don't really think i get where you're coming from, because "art for art's sake" or "symbolism for symbolism's" sake, to me, is verging on being prescriptive, and obviously very subjective. when is a symbol not for symbolism's sake? how do we know? does "artsy" stuff have to be presented in a certain way in order for it to be appreciated as art, and anything more is "excessive artsiness" and therefore not artful?
saying something is 'pretentious' is a conversation killer to me, especially when it's generally reserved for movies, books, shows, etc. that could generate some pretty good discussion. (i don't think Tree of Life is pretentious at all!)
and i think if people were to honestly have a criteria for 'pretentiousness' then you'd probably dismiss an entire world of cinema (and i mean that almost literally), since international and classic cinema doesn't really fall in line with traditional Hollywood structure, it would be easy for a Michael Bay fan to dismiss Fellini movies, for example, as 'pretentious' when, really, they are just different