Jacob: Intent is commonly a requirement for an object to be art, so my only objection to non-human art is that they do not produce art intentionally. While non-humans are capable of producing aesthetic objects, can they have an artistic intent?

I have often thought about this same question and since I think the idea ties in with a post that I had made, I am interested in exploring the topic deeper. When evaluating art, we do often form judgements based on the artists intent. I have to agree that although non-humans can produce works which humans see as aesthetic, I find it hard to believe that there is much artistic intent involved. It is important to keep in mind that non-humans senses operate differently than ours and therefore even if there was some sort of intent behind non-human art, how could humans possibly percieve this intent on the same level? Much of the art that I have seen which is produced by non-humans focuses on still life-type imitations or even simple groupings of color and what not. My point here is that although we may percieve these works as aesthetic object, the intent behind them is most likely varied, and related to ideas in which we cannot understand due to the obvious language and behavioral barriers between humans and non-humans.

so here is a question:

Does art exist for non-humans in an aesthetic sense, or is it rather a reflection/extension of the human lifestyle?