You write as if all artists have a hidden agenda of promulgating the secret goodness of products that are economic flops.  I assure you that the purpose of my starting this discussion was in no way to advance my agenda of proving that Chrono Trigger and The World Ends With You are "better" than Madden '07, despite the sales figures implying the opposite; mosty because no one would even need to make this argument :)  I apologize if I came accross as such.

Things will get much clearer if we define art.  One popular definition is that art is anything we experience that serves neither to advance the amassing of resources or to aid in reproduction, but rather in exploring the human condition.  I'll be running with this definition for now, but I am very open to other suggestions.

Now, Sky Render pointed out very astutely that many historic masterpieces were commissioned works.  However, we can make this discussion far more meaningful by noting that many works of art that have withstood the test of time were not economically viable in their own times.  This is usually the fault of a paucity of publicity and preconceived notions about specific artists.  Considering that most people buy games before they play them, sales figures fail as a means for describing or comparing the actual experience of playing any game.  I want to devise a framework for discussing the experience of playing, and your points have shown me that such a framework must avoid assinging value judgements to games.

Instead, let us ask the following question:

"When historians write the history of video games, which games will they consider revolutionary, or influential, or ground-breaking, or as models that other games sought to emulate, and why?"

Because when they write that book, Madden '07 is going to get a line or two, and TWEWY will get at least a chapter on how it forces players to simultaneously engage in two separate yet intertwined games at the same time on two different screens, with two different control schemes. 

Art need not entertain, so long as it innovates, and in Shakespeare's (or Milan Kundera's) conception, reveals us to ourselves as we actually are.

You would be mocked comparing videogames to art, but why is it so bad for games to be viewed as artistic? An old geezer would tell you it's mindless drivel and stick his nose up.

Board games aren't art. VIDEOgames portray a VISUAL experience which art does. The difference is, I can spend up to 50 hours looking at one for months LOL

Actually, you're wrong. Until very recently, artists, musicians, and other entertainers simply weren't rewarded very well financially. Mozart, Michaelangelo, Bethoveen, etc. were all VERY well known throughout Europe, but their commissions were never enough to make them incredibly wealthy. A lack of fame had nothing to do with it.

You're way overthinking this, in my opinion, but I'd add that even prima facie this statement is flawed. Madden '07 won't be mentioned, but the original Madden sure as hell will be, as it set the trend of the annual franchise (which, like it or not, fulfills all four of your criteria very neatly). TWEWY isn't going to get a blip, though, unless it inspires a new genre. After all, novel concepts which fail to sell occur with some regularity, but the "fail to sell" part ensures that they remain unique.

As to your final sentence, I won't pretend to be qualified to discuss what "art" is, since I have little patience for philosophy. I would add, though, that if "art needn't entertain" then a medium devoted exclusively to entertainment probably isn't the best place to search for it. Of course, I fervently disagree with that statement (were not all the greatest works of art meant to entertain in some manner, be it visually, aurally, or some combination thereof? As I and Sky Render alluded to earlier, Shakespeare, Homer, and other great artists did what they did to eat, not to make some grand statement) but if we accept it, then we'll find precious few examples in the video game industry.

In any case, I'll be happy to continue this discussion in the morning, but for now alcoholic beverages are beckoning. I look forward to hearing what you and others have to say.

the Art makes the artist, not the other way around.

I briefly saw Kasz say games aren't "good enough to be art yet". I'm not going to get into the various levels of why I believe that to be a false statement and will just say I disagree.

In all things there is an astute differance between the value of economic greatness and aesthetic greatness. I think people, who may or may not lack a refined taste for the latter, will chose to represent the former because it has a more finite result that leaves less ground for debate.

I could elaborate but, I think that can sum it up nicely.

As far as gaming and where it leads can be seen in all other markets the world over. What started as art, and beautiful will be devoured by mass consumerism. Music (very good example by the way), Movies, Stage, Furniture, Gardening, Sculpting and so-on, has had it's price found and has been bought and sold. Even sex fits in this. Our concept of monetary value, OH and Sport. Big time! is set to redifine true value with it's new artificial worth.

what? seriously you have zero idea wtf you are talking about.

Artistic things are never designed to sell to mainstream market in multiples of millions of units.

Andy Warhol sez hai!

I think people take "games are art" entirely in the wrong direction. They judge by criteria which games do not and often cannot excel in, criteria that better apply to movies. These criteria often have little to no impact whatsoever on how fun a game actually is, which may explain why most "artistic" games don't sell well.

One quality that games can have in spades which other entertainment can only grasp at, however, is immersion. Why is there no declaration of "artistic" for when a game is so immersive that anybody who plays the game gets sucked in and keeps playing, keeps coming back, becomes thoroughly addicted to the game?

That, to me, is the only criteria that any game should be judged on as "art". If a game does not draw the player in enough to make them want to play it and recommend it to others, it is not a good game. But what of the games that excel at it, that spawn endless waves of new participants because the experience is so rewarding? The job of a game is to entertain, and if a product is so good at entertaining that it can do so near-indefinitely, it has truly achieved "art" status. "Art" is emblematic of the best qualities of the medium being put under the microscope, after all, is it not?

In a round-about way that's kind of a good Marxist critique of the role of the videogame in the kapitalistic system.

If you think about it, though, that describes the most influential games of all time nicely. All you need do is add in a clause that the game can also continue to sell through its sequels in gaining such status, and you can account for a great deal of series that have in fact defined gaming.