Animals and Art

Here is a question I found peculiar, "Can animals produce works of art?"
Of course not, I thought to myself, and I assumed that the majority of the class would agree with me on that topic. I was completely wrong. The class was torn on the topic of whether or not animals can produce art. The question in itself is ridiculous to me. How can a creature without a soul produce something which moves us in the same that a great work of art moves us?
Art needs to be created by something which has a soul. According to Dewey's beliefs art is what works. A bird builds a nest as its home because the nest will protect the bird. The nest "works". A bird uses its instincts to create something practical and livable. It does not intend for its nest to be viewed as art, even if the nest does have a certain beauty about it.
I do agree that animals can produce something aesthetically pleasing, but that does not mean it is art. If art was always what "worked" and was based off of our instincts we would not have art. We would always spend time thinking of practicality, we would build structures for our survival. Humans would be soul-less creatures. We may evolve from animals, but we are now worlds apart.

If humans were without a soul, would art exist? Do you agree or disagree with me?