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.
personally, I define art as anything that expresses something that's very hard to express. I don't know what your definition is but I would agree with lilchicken. Games expresss so many complicated themes.. While I see why pollocks painting should gain appreciation now.. I don't see it expressing anything of the human condition.