Ah, so we have three people since I last looked who state that art is necessarily the product of intent. And one directs us to the reasoning of C. S. Lewis, in his argument for both an inherent moral compass and natural tastes. I'm afraid that is not a currently popular view.
Even the view that evolutionary progression has produced such inherent tendencies is not popular with modern intellectual society (or at least the most vocal part). So, while compelling to some, it probably comes off to the average liberal Bay12 forum poster (assuming the liberals are the most common and not simply the most vocal) as high-handed.
However: I have to agree. First, that C. S. Lewis's apologetic books are a heck of a good read no matter what your faith, because he was such a great logician (though I am convinced he was wrong about some things and that I see holes in some of his statements, as I am sure anyone with formulated views will say when reading his work). Second, that the human soul is quite real and that contemplation of the soul and its actions and products (such as music and physical art) gives meaning to life. Third, glad to see that someone thinks the same way about animals trained to mimic an artist's actions. I still wonder what point that poster was trying to make, or if it was a joke-troll in a straight-faced discussion?
So, in the majority of interested posters:
1)
Art has intent.
2) Art comes from the human creative soul, imagination, or simple creative impulses. There is disagreement between those who advocate a spiritual human being and those who advocate a simple genetic computer: an animal human. However,
art is human.
3) There is good art and bad art, but the quality itself doesn't determine whether something is "Art".
1) Should art be preserved throughout the ages? What is the merit of doing so? We preserve simple historical knowledge so that we might learn from it, or at least we did in the past with the point of view that "Man does not change, and all things under the Sun have been before and will be again" or something to that point. Do we learn about the nature of "previous man" and the ways society and the individual have changed (or have not changed) in a meaningful way from art?
2) Is art something that can only truly exist in the moment?
3) Does the (possible) transience of art affect the merit of its preservation?