Valentina

This is so simplistic, but I think it may be true. (Because, as some have pointed out, we are not here attempting to define "good art," but only "art.") I also kind of like the "expression of an intangible idea through a tangible medium" definition.

I don't think we can say that anything that "moves you", or "inspires emotion" or "promotes the free exchange of ideas" is art--because too many non-art objects would meet these criteria (e.g. a massive redwood tree, an arresting rock formation, the mating behavior of a bird-of-paradise, etc, etc...)

The difference is intent--and specifically, intent to create art, which is most likely a uniquely human motivation.

But consider the bowerbird. Male bowerbirds (there are several different species in the family) create large, elaborate structures from natural materials for the sole purpose of attracting a mate. They then decorate these structures with various objects (both natural and man-made, depending on what's available. Some species favor blue. Others collect only white objects, and still others will decorate the entrance to the bower with a rainbow of natural objects, in small piles grouped carefully by color). The bowers of some species are incredibly beautiful, obviously require considerable skill to create, and call to mind the artwork of Andy Goldsworthy.

But are they art? If "intent to create art" or "intent to express some intangible idea" is the proper definition, then I guess bowers are not art. But they sure are both beautiful and thought-provoking!

Can non-humans create art? Check out this link for a few photos, and a discussion of the question:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bowerbirds/art.html