I think "All Video Games are art" was meant to defend against accusations that Video Games were somehow cognitohazards that caused people to shoot up their schools. And IIRC, that was the defense used at the Supreme Court (which ultimately sided in favor of Video Games).

If we wish to continue to operate under the logic that "All Video Games are art", we need to somehow do away with the myth that "all (good) art is angsty", or that "all art must be preachy/must preach something". This is surprisingly easier said than done, given how inflexible the human brain is.
While "All Video Games are art" was adequate in defending against accusations that Video Games caused violence, it's not adequate at defending against accusations that gaming is sexist or even racist.

While video games are an artistic medium, I think the blanket statement of "video games are art" is flawed. In the sense that yes, a video game can be art and show artistry, but not every video game is like that. Or at the very least, not every aspect of it.

Take shitty mobile games or other F2P structures. They are essentially sterile business models and scientific formulas painstakingly designed to manipulate the person into giving money for nothing. All with a tarp of fancy visuals and sounds thrown over them. While you can argue that those fancy visuals and sounds can count as art, as a whole I'd say that the game isn't Same for very blatant knock-offs, where the only difference is a slightly different coat of paint. At best you might think there's some artistic merit to that coat of paint, but as a whole it's just a copy.

It doesn't help that "art" to incompetent hacks worming their way into the industry is perceived purely as story or abstract nonsense. As well as making games as "cinematic" as possible. When that's a disservice to the benefits off the medium such as interactivity.