Response to Fallon's "are humans the only beings able to make artwork and show the intentionality behind it?"

Art, being a human-made trade, is, I think, only able to be created by humans. While we can appreciate nature and all its beauty, I don't think we can appreciate it as art, because when nature creates something that happens to be beautiful, they don't do it with the same kind of intention that humans do when they create something. Though they are intending to create, there is no meaning behind what they have created, except usefulness. There is intention, but, I think a big part in defining what is and isn't art is the intention for it to mean something. When a bird creates an exceptionally beautiful nest, it is to attract a mate. When a human creates a n exceptionally beautiful piece of art, it is to share with the world a bit of the artist's own mind, or heart - it is to teach the world something about the artist, and the world around them. If we were to take every random occurance in nature as a work of art...well, then, art is all the world would be. And while a world filled with beauty is in many person's mind an ideal one, where would that leave us? If everything around us was art, would we continue to produce it, or would we be bound to an art-filled - though at the same time, art-less - world?