Significant Form (?)

Many of the authors we've studied so far have either hinted at or blatantly declared that the aesthetic theory depends strongly on something called "significant form" or "form." I recently brought up the question of "whether or not animals can understand aesthetic theory" in a post. This is of course, debatable, most specifically depending on the definition used for "form." Most aesthetic authors regard form or significant form as combinations of non-representational lines and colors that evoke our aesthetic emotions. Surely, an animal with proper vision can determine colors and distinguish lines in a probably non-representational way. Do you think animals can comprehend significant form, and therefore, aesthetic emotion? Would an animal be a proper, unbiased critic? Although they are experienced creatures, their experiences may not be tainted with false communications and complex outcomes as ours are.

Response to Jacob Wheeler's post on 10/20/11 at 2:07pm

I would say that Dewey, although incorporating lots of evolutionary approaches in his theories, would not accept art made by non-human creatures to be such. His theory does rely on the "conscious restoration," something in which most animals are thought unable to do. The art has to have "meaning" and I argue that the artist must "intend" to create art according to Dewey's theory. As of now, most animals do not exhibit the ability to intentionally and actively recount their experiences and portray them in art.

When Dewey tries to explain (a)esthetic standing, he uses the example of the Parthenon. Early in his work, he mentions that the Parthenon only has aesthetic standing according to the human experience. This does not appear to be a beguiling way to edge around other intelligent life forms, but seems to directly imply that aesthetic judgment can only truly be understood, in all complexity, by humans. And if one is to make art, than one should hope to portray aesthetic value/experience in said work, and for those intentions to come together, one must be a human.

My question would be this; In order to debunk my theory, do you think non-human creatures are able to comprehend aesthetic standing?