Oy, I don't know if I can really disagree more, but in order to illustrate this, I have a to dip into other fields commonly dismissed in their time.
You see, back before the 1940s, movies, like videogames, were facing a similar controversy. High brow at experts had engaged in a battle of whether movies had the same artistic value as say, painting or literature. This was a tenuous debate based on singular authorship, and anybody here who has watched Bob Chipman's "Game OverThinker" knows exactly where I'm going with this. Long story short, a movement called "Nouvelle Vauge" presented the argument that, while a movie does not have singular authorship, it does have a primary influence in the form of a director. This movement lead an entire social movement that allowed movies to be considered of artistic value on par with literature, sculpting and painting.
But, not content with ripping off MovieBob's arguments, I can also think of a couple other mediums who faced this particular controversy. Science Fiction Literature is probably my first example, as it was not too long ago. You see, in the 1950s, like film, Science Fiction literature was under scrutiny of whether or not we can consider it art. Though it did have hilarious implication (in the form of Sturgeon's Revelation), it had the benefit of being able to live discover exactly how wrong it was. Instead of going through the history of this, I'm going to just point out that Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell is considered the crowning achievement of contemporary literature despite having an essentially Science Fiction Premise (set in then future, having Televisions that could monitor people, etc.). Even in other mediums, Stanley Kubrick's re-visioning of Arthur C. Clarke's Science Fiction Classic: 2001: A Space Odyssey, is considered amongst the most artistic movies to date.
Though, I'm not going to say your argument has no merit. I mean, after all Comic Books have been under the same controversy for years and they are to date nearly 90 years old. Though a strong argument can be made for, with the rise of popular comic book movies, such as The Dark Knight and the Spiderman movies, that there is a large shift social perspective regarding this medium. I would not be at all surprised if Comics, with their rise in popularity, begin to engage in this debate themselves.
But the most compelling argument to this case is one in which retyopy actually dismisses in his thesis. And that is the Dada movement. In the 1910s a small movement of "found art" and "anti-art" had began to sweep several nations. The best example of this is of course Fountain. If you do not know what Fountain is, let me give a small history lesson. A studio called the Society of Independent Artists had began scrutinizing pieces of art, considering the Dada movements (amongst others) to be inherently unartistic. Marcel Duchamp, a member of the board had decided to submit Mens Public Urinal signed under the pseudonym R. Mutt. This was accepted into the SIA, until shortly after it was revealed to be a farce. So what was point of this? Some say that Marcel Duchamp was trying to illustrate to his colleagues that art is not something that can be readily defined, nor scrutinized. As a result Fountain is still under display in several museums (including the Nelson in my home town of Kansas City) and is championed as one of the great contemporary artistic achievements.
I guess the point of this exercise is to illustrate a long history of other controversial mediums that have been since canonized as art. In this, I can conclude, through reason of history, that considering video games to "never be accepted as art" is not only inherently shortsighted, but ignorant of even recent history. And for those of you who say that you don't care whether or not society considers our favorite medium art. I'm going to say something very controversial here: You have either not reached your mid to late 20s yet, or you are lying. You see, as you begin to approach this humble age you will realize that the world judges you based on not only what you do, but what you do on your off time. Any gamer of this age wishes our medium to be considered an artform, if not only to not feel like people aren't thinking of you as a child when you say you play video games on your off time.
In conclusion, I do not believe this it altruistic to think that video games can be considered art, especially in 20 or so years when the generation that grew up appreciating video games begin to reach the majority. History repeats itself, and we must remain aware that this is not the first or last time this battle will be fought, and it may simply take the rise of another generation and the shift of the social Zeitgeist in order to realize artistic potential of video games. But saying "never gonna happen" is just as shortsighted as when IBM said that the personal computer will never catch on.
