In games there are two artists (so to speak). The creator of the objects, sounds, and story; and the player who skillfully performs feats that other players cannot. 

The same way Michael Jordon was an artist on the court, or Bruce Lee displayed mastery of martial arts; someone who expresses in a way that causes an emotional reaction of awe and wonder is an artist. 

Dou think people pretend to like music ?

As per Sturgeon's Law "90 percent of everything is crap", but some games are indeed art.

I liken games to TV and film in this regard. There's stuff that you only go in for simple entertainment and then there's stuff that is truly beautiful and/or thought provoking as well. If TV and film can be art, so can games.

Almost every aspect of what is traditionally considered art can be represented in video games.
Paintings, poems, sculptures, music, stories ect. is all things that can be added to games. Basically the only type of art missing is thing that uses physical touch, smell or taste in its art form.

But not all games are art the same way that not all paintings are art. I think the deciding factor is the ability to create feelings in the consumer of the art.

Same.

the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

Games aren't "primarily" appreciated for their graphics or emotions.  The primary focus for me is gameplay.  So a big no from me.

Having art elements, which games have, doesn't make them art.  I can appreciate a pretty car or fishing reel...  but function takes it from art and makes it something else.

I most certainly do.

Like many said pretty much everything that is sold can be considered art in some form of another. So the question is more do you see games being as artistic as iconic statues, paintings etc. And to that my answer is mostly no.

Sure there are some games who try and succeed in being really artistic, but most games do not and aren't simply as artistic as say high quality paintings imo, which only exist for being art. While games mostly exist for being entertainment and for that they don't need to have many qualities that we see in high quality art, like insanely polished and detailed.

Also gaming lacks the history for them to be considered high quality art. Perhaps when they are 50 years old they will have a bigger artistic value. Same as how a Jaguar E type is widely considered a pie e of art, but modern cars which in general are as pretty and exclusive are not as widely considered as art. Games ino definitely fall in the latter category.

To me, art is the expression of feelings by using a certain medium. By that definition, everything (literature, cinema, sculpture, architecture, music, painting, videogames, even sports) CAN be art if they are used to express and manifest feelings in a way that cannot be shown by conventional means.

So, to me, something like Call of Duty (especially the more recent titles), or Mario Strikers is NOT art. But something like Mario Galaxy or Spec Ops: The Line IS art.

I don't think it matters.  My wife is an artist, and most artist (just my experience) view "true" art as non functional.  It is kind of a defining feature.  But yeah, I agree, it doesn't really matter.  I would rather play a videogame than go to a museum...  so people should just enjoy whatever it is they enjoy.