Symbolism & superficiality?

Lately, I have been questioning whether superficiality in art makes a piece of art less worthwhile or 'bad'. For example, the narrator in this geisha dance ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6O7KFCCEdU ) explains the significance of the geisha's movements and the change of weather being symbolic of a story. If it were it not for the narrator, I wouldn't understand a thing symbolically, though I would still really enjoy it aesthetically since I love this kind of theatre. Obviously a person would have to be sufficiently educated about the historical context or even religious implications, but I just seem to have no clue about the idea of symbolism. I love William Bougereau, Klimt and the Pre-Raphaelites aesthetically, and am in fact very interested in the stories. The problem comes when I am producing my own art. If I were to paint something that seems to have a story, I feel like I'm contriving the concept e.g the 'story' and symbolisms are only there for pretentious reasons. If I were to enter art circles, I feel like I'd be heavily critiqued if my art was superficial. But, I understand that paintings, theatre productions pieces of music or poetry etc etc ARE more interesting to people when there is a story behind it. Even I am interested by symbolism. However, is superficial art really considered worse or bad, and does symbolism have its own kind of language?