Following on from the argument over whether video games can be art, the same question is now being leveled at DJing – can playing recorded music for the entertainment of a crowd be called art?

Last weekend DJ Shadow had his set at the Mansion nightclub in Miami abruptly curtailed, the reason given that it was "too future" and too confusing.

Reading on mobile? Watch this video on YouTube

Shadow later tweeted the following:

I don't care if I get kicked out of every rich kid club on the planet. I will never sacrifice my integrity as a DJ...ever #AllBassesCovered — DJ Shadow (@djshadow) December 16, 2012

Fellow DJ Erol Alkan later offered his support on Twitter:

or perhaps just too future for that corner of Miami. it's sad what some people expect from Djs these days.part kids entertainer part jukebox — erol alkan (@erolalkan) December 18, 2012

But isn't "part entertainer part jukebox" a fairly reasonable description of what a DJ does? That was a point made by journalist David Hepworth in a (since deleted) post on his blog. Referring to DJs in general, he said: "You must surely realise that you make your living by putting on records, which is only a tiny bit removed in degree of difficulty from switching on the radio. Furthermore, there must be an implied social aspect to your trade. If you take to the stage to play records then you are entering into a sort of contract. You must accept that your job is to increase the amount of happiness in the room rather than reduce it."

So what exactly are the roles and responsibilities of the DJ? Is the DJ's task to simply entertain the masses – or is the DJ is an artist? How creative is the DJ's role – and is it really that far removed from "switching on the radio"? We'd like to hear what you think.