Everybody considers art different. For me games are art because it's extremely difficult to bring a made up world to life with music, artist, characters and good gameplay. I don't consider paintings like this http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nN4X_z40N0U/T0D-DZIdEkI/AAAAAAAACSk/2gJtrX4SAdU/s1600/Pollock_no-5.jpg as art because boring people see things that aren't there. (FACT: this is the most expensive painting ever).
In the study of Chaos in Physics, you can analyse patterns and shapes for something called their fractal dimension, which basically analyses how repeated the shapes or patterns are within a picture. They're basically patterns that repeat themselves as they are created through a mathematic formula or equation which is repeated over and over - I'm sure you've seen fractals before. Anywho you can apply this analysis to any picture and get its fractal dimension.
Whats interesting is if you analyse Pollocks work to find their fractal dimension they actually have a (non-integer, as expected) value! and as you look at the painting throughout his career as he went along over time the painting have a higher fractal value so as to suggest his 'style' improved or became more formulaic / adjusted / improved as he went throughout his career.
I did a pretty bad job of explaining it so read the link above to get a better idea - point is I think it's a great argument against people just saying abstract art like Pollocks work is just smoke and mirrors. The mathmatical analysis done on his work isn't something that would give any type of fractal dimensionality if I had just throw paint at a canvas.