I have seen great artists who use very few colors and yet produce wonderful artwork and I’ve also seen some artists who use every hue and shade possible to create a vivid and colourful image.
Well this got me thinking. You can observe one set of language experts who always insist on using “simple” language for communicating with other people assuming the audience is not aware of technical jargon. And the other set of experts believe that if you dumb-down your content it loses its essence.
Wikipedia defines a word as:
a word is the smallest element that may be uttered in isolation with semantic or pragmatic content.
Well then, what’s the purpose of long words when you have short, simple equivalents? I always had this question, and I think Gary Provost explained it really well:
“This sentence has five words. Here are five more words. Five-word sentences are fine. But several together become monotonous. Listen to what is happening. The sound of it drones. It’s like a stuck record. The ear demands some variety. Now listen. I vary the sentence length, and I create music. Music. The writing sings. It has a pleasant rhythm, a lilt, a harmony.
I use short sentences. And I use sentences of medium length. And sometimes, when I am certain the reader is rested, I will engage him with a sentence of considerable length, a sentence that burns with energy and builds with all the impetus of a crescendo, the roll of the drums, the crash of the cymbals–sounds that say listen to this, it is important.” 
I have observed a general trend among many people where they simply “memorize” word lists from random sites and/or a dictionary and often use these words in actual conversations. This is quite common for those who are preparing for GRE/language examinations. If you think simply using flowery language will make you appear smarter, think again. It wont. It would be like owning a Ferrari without knowing how to drive it.
I believe that no two words are really alike even though they may have similar dictionary meanings and the way any word is perceived varies from individual to individual. On a meta-level, this would mean that everyone interprets everything differently.
Something that looks clever to you might be boring to others, and something very important to you might be meaningless to distant readers. And this is a challenge for the authors to ensure that the readers can “see” their “paintings” exactly the way they had “painted”.
 Gary Provost, quoted in Roy Peter Clark’s Writing Tools