All I have to say is: "Its about time".

While I agree that games are art, I disagree with your reasoning behind it.

You said: "[i]Games are art because everyone can make games[/i]".
Well, not everyone [u]can[/u] make games (though everyone can certainly try). But also, everyone can make a pancake, but that doesn't make pancakes art.
Art is not defined by how accessible it is - just because people [u]can[/u] do something, doesn't make that something 'art'.
Not everyone can chisel a block of marble into a statue... does that make statues cease to be art?

Also, many indies don't do every spec of the game themselves. They oftentimes recruit friends, or partner with people online, or pay small sums and outsource, for many of the game resources. Yes, there are plenty of lone wolf developers... but usually they are only working alone until their project reaches a certain point in development, and then they go out recruiting. Minecraft, Fract, The Witness, Lugaru: Overgrowth, etc... Sole developers at first, who once things start to ramp up and stabilize, then they call in the help.

You also said, "[i]One more advantage of the indie gaming is that you can make simple and addicting flash games quickly."[/i]
[left][font=helvetica, arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif]That statement doesn't have anything to do with art! Matter of fact, it's almost an argument against games being art in my opinion. =)[/font][/left]

[left][font=helvetica, arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif]Being easy to make (if they actually are easy to make or not), does not make games art.[/font][/left]
[left][font=helvetica, arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif]Being popular (another of your arguments) does not make games art.[/font][/left]
[left][font=helvetica, arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif]Being made by a single person does not make games art.[/font][/left]

[left][font=helvetica, arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif]And even if games are art... that doesn't mean any old game developer is equal to da Vinci. (Not that I'm particularily found of da Vinci anyway, but you brought him up)[/font][/left]

[left][font=helvetica, arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif]Are games art? Yes. But not for the reasons you mentioned.[/font][/left]

@[url="http://www.gamedev.net/user/187409-net-gnome/"]Net-Gnome[/url]: Actually, the article he linked to (and the Supreme Court decision), was from last year. Besides, since when has the term 'art' needed to be defined by the government? We don't need government recognition to be art or not. The only reason the government got involved at all, was due to freedom of expression in games - not about whether games are art. It's just a technical point that they implied/stated that games are art while making their decision. We shouldn't jump up and say, "[i]Ha! Look! Legally on paper our games are art. See? The government says so![/i]". Art doesn't cease to become art if the government says it isn't art, nor does it become art if the government or a legal document says it is.

Or, as a gamedev user[url="http://www.gamedev.net/topic/597909-its-not-just-a-game-its-art/page__p__4787611#entry4787611"] said so well[/url]:
"[i]When I hear people talk about how games are art, I suggest to them instead to think of a game as if it were a table painstakingly built by a craftsman putting hours of effort into something that he loves doing. The table may never be actually seen as art but the quality of the piece cannot be denied[/i]."

A painter-artist I know said in response, when I mentioned the above quote:
"[i]Whatever else videogames are or are not, I believe they represent a significant new understanding of where these last and future decades are situated culturally.[/i]"

Being recognized by the government does not make games art.

Games [i]are[/i] art. But not because the Supreme Court said so.

@Servant of the Lord: Its not that i need the government to tell me what is art, its the recognition that it is art and therefore is awarded protections under law. That is what is important: the legal guards of being classified as a protected by the 1st amendment. Its what allows us to continue artistic freedoms without worrying about reprisal from "offended" sources.

[quote name='Net Gnome' timestamp='1330110757']
@Servant of the Lord: Its not that i need the government to tell me what is art, its the recognition that it is art and therefore is awarded protections under law. That is what is important: the legal guards of being classified as a protected by the 1st amendment. Its what allows us to continue artistic freedoms without worrying about reprisal from "offended" sources.
[/quote]

I agree with him. Anyway, we did not see games as art before this. To be honest, I lol-ed first time I saw that article.

[quote name='LoreHunter' timestamp='1330165412']
I agree with him. Anyway, we did not see games as art before this.[/quote]
We've been discussing whether games are art for many years, whether or not you did not see games as art before you recently read the Supreme Court ruling from last year.
People have talked about games like Myst (1992) being art, though being too young when it was released, I don't know if they just did so after the fact or not. People have discussed Ico (2002), Shadow of the Colossus (2005), Braid (2008), Super Columbine Massacre RPG! (2005), fl0w (2007) as art [u]during[/u] their releases.

People have been discussing games as art for quite some time.