The difference is that he was an artist. Many may not like his abstracts (I do), but he was capable of making things others would find more palatable.

I didn't say I liked it or not. From an observers point of view what would you look for in his abstract art to tell a fake from an actual work? Think Kostabi.

the types of paint used and the technique mostly from what i've heard

It's not a matter of palatable. Once upon a time an 'artist' put a crucifix in a jar of piss and called it art The thing is a lot of his paintings could not be differentiated from spilled paint - and I was curious if there was a sign of his technique that could be seen and used to prove an original

Pollock was a better technical painter than you’d probably even know if you’ve never painted

I have not. That's why I asked.

oh, no, no shade...it's a whole thing... his ability to maintain smooth textures and even thickness with that level of intense detail, no matter how thick the paint shows a mastery of the medium that few could match

also, like, a lot of his stuff included objects that were symbolic and colors that were meant to evoke specific emotions as you surrounded yourself in it... like, these things aren't generally a 3.5x3