Sharp traced the trajectory of both art and of games. He looked at how both have been viewed through the ages and commented on how it was not until the High Renaissance that we started looking at art as leisure for those with money. It was no longer just in the service of religion or the personal.
Games, however, were tied in with more basic instincts, but fulfill many of the same roles. They can offer deeper meaning, provide room for introspection, et cetera. However, the last note argues against what Lantz calls the domestication of games: "In the end though, Sharp said that the relationship between games and art remains fraught. 'To display a game in a gallery is to take away a part of its game-ness.'"
Lantz seems to make a similar argument, saying that we need not change games to conform to ideas of what is art, but use games to change how we define art. After all, the definition of art is constantly changing, and having its boundaries pushed. This is true of any art form, and makes much more sense than trying to apply the principles of film, literature, and so forth to the medium of games wholesale.
Therefore, instead of asking, "Are games art?" our focus should be elsewhere. Instead of seeing art as a definition that needs be met, we should see it as a definition whose parameters can be expanded and encapsulate a new form.