Flowery prose and poetics can be sued to hide your meanings in convoluted imagery, so that only a few understand, or it can be used to imply that there's a profound hidden meaning in the test, reserved for the few, but where there is nothing of any substance, or nothing that has not already be said, using different language.
How can be differentiate the two?
We must use the same method to expose the fake from the talented artist.
We assume that Picaso's later abstract painting were intentional and hide a meaning, because of his earlier realistic work.
Nietzsche does this with his psychological insights, proving his acumen so as to then hide his meaning in more metaphorical language.
A pseudo-intellectual may try to imitate this by using pros and metaphor to imply his depth of meaning, when he has not proven that he has an eye for detail, nor a talent to perceive and understand.
An 'artist' that goes straight to obscurantism, or abstract fArt, is trying to circumvent the proving step, coveting only the admiration or the monetary rewards of a gifted artist.
A fArtist has never, and can never, produce any art that can be evaluated against reality....and a pseudo-intellectual has never and can never offer insights that even a common mind can understand and appreciate.
For him abstractions, obscurity, is a way of hiding how mediocre and untalented he truly is.