Interesting article...
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/108/1084651p1.html
What do you think? If you call art something that helps you see the world in a new way and taps into something emotional--I think there have been art games for a long time.

Art is that which is created with the intention of creating art. It's entirely dependant on the intentions behind the creation.
Typically with games there are a great many priorities that supersede any artistic intentions. That is not to say that games cannot have artistic elements but it is more often the case that artistic skills are employed to create something which is, as a whole, not art.

If an artist's shit is an art, then even the worst game ever made can be an art.

"...that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet..."
-Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet
In other words, who cares? Call it art, don't call it art, it doesn't change what it actually is at all. It is just a semantic argument.

Of course they are. I think the real question is are all games art?

Would you consider an action movie a piece of art? In a very loose sense it is part of the "arts" but there really isn't anything deep there. Same with video games. I think they are a form of media art, but I would hardly go out of my way to refer to games as art.
Frankly, I don't really care either. I just enjoy playing games, and while I like how the graphics can look, I don't really think it matters. I'd really like to know who started this debate TBH.

I agree. It is the same as in "normal" art. For example this is for me no art at all.

+1
Some games are a form of art. The first game to cross my mind is Braid : this is a true masterpiece, and it speaks to your mind in a way that no other medium could achieve. Definitely art if you ask me.
Still, some games are not artistic in any way... say, the Sims for instance.

If nobody can agree on a definition for art, why bother classifying things as such?
*goes back to Redneck Rampage

Lots people have brought this up over the years, but Roger Ebert brought a great deal of attention to the issue by making a very public and vocal assertion that video games can never be art.

I honestly don't know why people listen to Ebert about video games being art. It's incredibly obvious he doesn't play video games, so it's pretty clear that he doesn't have a valid opinion. His level of ignorance on this issue would be the same as mine if I started saying no films were art based solely on watching their trailers, incorrectly assuming plot points, and judged them based on that.

Do they try to create an emotional reaction in a player?
Do they try to tell a story?
Do they attempt to make people think?
If they answer yes to at least 2 of these, I say its art. If not, its probably CoD...

To answer the thread questions succinctly: maybe and no.

Art is creative expression.
So I would say yes for the most part.
but I don't think we should really care.
We play video games to have fun.
I'm a musician but I don't think of my music as being "art" I just like to play because it's fun.

I think that's a false definition.
Do TV soaps try to do all 3 of the above? Yes.
Are they Art? No
It's not the trying that's important in certain mediums, it's the success.
Bonus thought!
Can the phrase "I don't know much about art but I know what I like!" ever be said to include games?