I disagree - there is nothing complicated or difficult in Pollock's art; he himself states his vision clearly: "I am nature." Likewise, there's nothing complicated or difficult in Hirst's work either because, quite simply, he has nothing complicated, interesting, or difficult to say. To quote the late Bob Hughes:
"his work is both simple-minded and sensationalist, just the ticket for newbie collectors who are, to put it mildly, connoisseurship-challenged and resonance-free. "
I'm yet to see anyone disparage a Michaleangelo, but I do see them question the validity of a Pollock.
At some level, it is the fault of modern artists as well - a Pollock or even a Hirst isn't easy to "get"