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.
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.
Pollocks paintings represent nature though - the underlying laws of physics and mechanics which make up the shapes of our coastlines, our forests, our landscapes. He's managed to capture chaotic dynamics into his work, and throughout his career further improved and develoepd his style - and I'd say that is something very difficult to express. I find it fascinating how paintings with a fractal dimension are generally seen as more visually appealing psychology tests and the ideas of how this relates to evolution and whatnot.
Anywho, I'm not really trying to disagree with you, art is subjective and all that, I just find it fascinating. I'd normally scoff at the idea of a load of paint being throw on a canvas being worth millions. But Pollocks work intriguies me, because as someone who studies physics, it is science that shows they actually have a meaning and something which you can attribute that value too. I could throw paint at a canvas but it wouldn't capture nature like the refined and precise style of Pollock did. And I guess now I've seen one artist like this clearly has something more to his work then being contrived - it makes me question weather more art is like this, and I just can't appreciate it.