The problem people are having is making art seem like so many things.
Art is generally accepted as an action whereby a medium is used to create something that "wasn't there before" and that conveys or evokes an emotional response. So, this means Art exists in any creative or design activity, there has to be an audience, and there has to be an "experience".
Also, just because some thing or event said to be Art is also something else, like say gymnastics which is artful sport, doesn't mean it isn't Art.
Lots of people define Art from their (limited and exclusionary) experiences behind the red velvet rope at the museum.
The modernist expansion of the ability (and the mindset) to get the audience involved in art so as to better experience the art, is relatively new and many don't make the leap, living in a traditional world. It's not just games, -- stories, dance and other art forms have become much more interactive.
As to how to make an "artful" game, if I knew a) I'd be more successful, and B) it'd probably be a way too lengthy forum post.
BTW, they used to say that film isn't Art because it puts a wall between the audience and the actor. In theater plays, at the time considered more "artful", the actor can adapt to the audience dynamically. It was said that film limited this and "reduced" the art to a mechanical tool.
Oh, the more things change, the more they stay the same...