The question of whether video games can be considered an art form is raging across the internet. Game designer Kellee Santiago asserted in a TED talk that they can be. Film critic Roger Ebert responded that video games are not and can never be art. Gamers and art critics immediately joined in the fray. Neatorama author John Farrier comes down on the side of video games as art and explains in detail.
What do you think? Link
I define art -- and specifically good art -- as the effective outward expression of an inward conception of an ideal condition. If a person thinks of a story, and can express that story fully in text, that person is an artist and has produced art. If a person thinks of a sound and can fully express that sound in music, that person is an artist and has produced art. If a person thinks of a movement and can fully express that movement in dance, that person is an artist and has produced art. If a person thinks of an image and can fully express that image in paint, that person is an artist and has produced art.
If a person can envision a video and gather a team together that can accurately express that inner vision, that person is an artist and has produced art.
What do you think? Link
However, calling it art these days is a slap in the face, since we often label any slapped-together-crap as "art".
Anyway, discussions on "what is art?" are not new and have been going on for centuries. Most modern artists understand the concept that if you think it's art, it is art, but it may only be art for you. Anything can be considered art, a famous example is Duchamp's Fountain,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_%28Duchamp%29
which was considered art simply because it was displayed in an art gallery. I think Contempory Art has employed such a very broad understanding of art that the artistic community must include computer games, film, animation, advertising and many other "crafts" as art and be prepared to judge them as such whether they are entertaining, or amusing or silly or even ugly.