The comments of r/funny is such a weird place to be discussing this, but since you asked, I'd like to point out a few things as a current art history major:

I haven't studied Da Vinci or Rembrandt very in-depth, but keep in mind that Renaissance artists were hardly the first to use "realistic perspective" and both artists mentioned accomplished a lot beyond experiments with perspective (the representation of the figure, light, movement, etc.)

I did just spend a lot of time on Impressionism, though, so here's the abridged version. The Impressionists were going after a very different type of realism than had previously been explored--their goal was to undergo a cognitive unlearning so that they could paint what they saw from a naive, unbiased position. They wanted to see the way that a blind man who had just regained sight would see, with no preconceived notions about painterly conventions or how things ought to look. It really had nothing to do with abstraction, but the speed at which they painted gives some Impressionist compositions a look that resembles abstract art.

I like your description of Dali, but for Picasso, it's important to realize the breadth and depth of his career. A lot of his work, especially his Cubist collages, dealt with the image, painterly conventions, perspective, form, etc. but he also tackled political and social issues and more abstract concepts like the meaning of signs and signifiers (there are some very interesting interpretations of Cubist works that use linguistics to get at what Picasso was doing).

For Pollock, it's almost exactly the opposite of what you said about the viewer engaging with a picture. The critic Harold Rosenberg coined the term "action painting" to articulate what he was doing and describes the canvas as "an arena in which to act." Pollock's finish canvases are the record of his time spent in the arena of the canvas--they are highly personal and emblematic of the artist's hand and his movement around the huge canvas (if you didn't know, he laid his canvases on the ground, not on an easel or wall). One of the reasons the critic Clement Greenberg loved Pollock was because he exemplified the idea of "medium specificity"--that is, all that painting has ever been is paint on canvas, and this is a way of painting that forces the viewer to recognize that. The picture plane is purposefully dense, covered with layers of paint that don't allow the viewer to enter the painting the way that one can enter a Renaissance painting. It is only paint on canvas.

That was a lot longer than I planned, but I get excited when talking about art history. If anything doesn't make sense, let me know!