Not like there is a proper definition of art that people aren't arguing about. It has changed both its meaning over the centuries, various things have been included as they became accepted, recognized... or were just appealing to the senses enough.
It's just a cultural thing and it's within the culture/society rather than in the object itself.
Some traditional Japanese arts were not considered art when they were created and their purpose wasn't even to create sometihng, let alone something appealing that aimed to be art.
But I'm fine with games being entertainment, so I don't care particularly whether they get more or less recognition as art.
Though in one of his arguments, I think he's wrong, if the purpose is to establish whether certain games are art.
This has nothing to do with his laid out criteria. It's just questioning the value of a work. I have no idea whether he considers generic and forgettable pop, series, movies and the likes art - maybe he's got a criteria on quality as well, but as far as that is concerned, it's just his subjective judgement and can hardly be fit into a definition of art.
