Video games are art. Right now. They're not approaching art. They're not being artistic. Certain instalments in the Final Fantasy series aren't the only games that transcend the barrier. They are art, right now.

For this to go anywhere we have to define what art is. For our purposes, art will be "any arrangement or recording intended to evoke a responce from those that experience it." That seems broad enough. That way, even poetry that is written and emmediately destroyed is art. The only person to experience it is the author. Even taped football broadcasts are art. Not my cup of tea, mind you, but art none the less.
So now we do the standard academic thing and ask ourselves "Do video games fit into this category?"

DUH.
FROGGER fits into that category. Frogger is designed to make you feel excited and apprehensive. And it works. It works VERY well. In fact, in general, you'll find that video games are able to create emotions with more gravity to them than almost any other art form. How tense have you gotten when playing space invaders, compared to how tense a painting has made you. I know that no movie, no matter how good, has ever made me jump out of me seat and exclaim with joy (or hatred), but video games sure have. Has any song ever given someone the same satisfaction they got when they finally rescued the princess?
So not only are games art, but they're an exceptionally powerful art form. The secret is something we've all held in our hands. The controller. Videogames involve you in a way no other media ever has. It's easy to look at a painting and only see the represented objects, or even just paint on a canvas, or read a novel and never once feel empathy for the character. With video games, you are IMPLICATED. You aren't just in the story, you're usually the God Damn protaganist. There's a reason why we don't see games where you play as the sidekick to the bad ass. It's not as involving, and therefor, not as effecting.
Are video games High Art? What is High Art? In general, High Art is considered to be art which is heavilly refined in a few aspects. Among them:

1. Clarity of Purpose. The High Art label is not usually ascribed to random pitch oscillations recorded and then played in reverse, art though it may be. High Art tends to know what it is, and what it's trying to say.
2. Quality of Conventions. How is the anantomy. What brush strokes is he using. Does he understand composition. Are there seams in the polygons.
3. Is It Really Old. I'm just being honest here.
4. Need for Reflection. Maybe it's just a baseless little criterion that was imposed by elitest academics, but it's in the definition.
5. Level of Purpose. Does the painting intend to get you to think about the meaning of life and feel the utter despair that the artist felt when his wife died from the plauge? It's probably High Art. Does the painting intend to get you hard? It's probably not High Art.

Now... who gives a damn? Videogames are fun, so why should we care whether or not they meet the standards set forth to become High Art? That's a good question. Video Games ARE fun, and they should continue to be. That's what made us all fall in love with them. BUT. They deserve a chance to be more. Videogames have some incredible aspects and qualities that are held by no other art form, and they deserve to have those qualities be respected and utilized. There are, of course trade offs, but there are benifets that comics have over movies, and paintings over comics, and music over paintings, and comics over music, and so on. The important thing is that video games get recognized as having amazing potential, so that it will be used.

Cause I really want to play games like that.