Gaming would be a lot better if people stopped obsessing about games as art and started to think about them as a craft.
There is no art without competent craft.
The problem is that some people these days have a skewed view of art, which enables bullshit such as modern conceptual art which isn't art at all because there is zero measure of skill involved, and in many cases not even effort.
Unless you put effort into it, unless you at least try to produce something with quality, it will not be art. Some walking simulator which is, like, totally deep and stuff isn't art no matter how "deep" and "thought provoking" it is if it fails at fulfilling the basic tasks of its medium.
Unless you actually put some gameplay, or at least heavy interactivity, into the game, it's not an "artistic" game. It might have a good story and good atmosphere, but that just means it would probably have been more effective in a different medium. Maybe a movie, maybe a novel, maybe a graphic novel, but not a game, because for it to qualify as a "game that is art" it must display these artistic qualities in the areas where it matters, which for a game is gameplay.
There are cases of good novels being turned into shit movies, or heck, even good games being turned into mediocre novels (Planescape Torment novelisation, for example). You'd call one of these two art, but the other just failed too hard at doing the thing it should do. No matter how great the novel that served as a base for the movie, if the director has no idea on how to construct a good movie scene and his delivery of the story just utterly sucks, it's not a good movie. Nobody would call it an artful movie, even if the book it is based on won the Nobel Prize. It would have an artistic element, which is the story, but it wouldn't be a work of art in its whole.
Art requires, in order to be good, a competent command of the craft. For games, that would be mostly level design but also mechanics. If your level design is banal shit boring, or if your mechanics are barely there (as in walking sims), you didn't create a "game as art". You might have written a story with literary quality, your graphics might be so beautiful they could be considered artworks on their own, but you didn't create a "game as art". For the game to be considered a piece of art in its whole, it has to succeed at the elements that are important for the medium of games. It has to have interactivity and gameplay and be at least reasonably competent at it.
Otherwise, the thing you just created might have been better as a movie, book, comic, musical... whatever.
P.S.
I don't consider bullshit like Jackson Pollock's crap art, because it is just stupid random splotches of paint on a canvas. There is no skill and no craft to it, and therefore it's shit.