I think this argument has been around for decades, maybe even during the 8-bit era. Now, I've heard arguments for both sides and have made up my own opinion, as seen by the title of this blog post. Jack Kroll of Newsweek wrote in 2000 that "games can be fun and rewarding in many ways, but they can't transmit the emotional complexity that is the root of art." I'm not flaming at the dude's thoughts but I disagree. Art is an expression in its simplist form, a expression, thought, idea that is in the physical from a subjective view. There is beautiful art, and ugly art to some. I think the gaming industry has produced some remarkable pieces of art. I believe that the gaming industry has three forms of art: graphic/stylings, story, music. 
 
The graphic/styling of the game would be the obvious form of art, actually viewable by the person. Some games have astounding graphics like Crysis, bluring the boundaries between virtual and real life. Games like Okami, while not running on powerful cards like the before mentioned Crysis, are as equally appealing to the eye.  
 
Story plays a huge part in a game (I think) and should be considered an art form. The Metal Gear series has always been pushing the boundaries of video game story telling, with Hideo Kojima telling his crazy tale of Snake. Are books not considered an art form?  
 
Music. The final piece of gaming art. Every game has a soundtrack, each composed to support and enhance the gaming experience. How many times have you wanted to find the soundtrack because it was mind blowing? For me, the Martin O'Donnell experience in the Halo franchise drove me to actually get the soundtrack. I'm sure the majority of people will tell you that indeed music is a form of art. 
 
Maybe individually these three art forms might not satifiy the critics of the gaming as an art form discussion, but together, they truly are an art form.  
 
And yeah...I'm kinda tired of this conversation too. But....whatevs.