Viewers can decide whether they see art, which makes their makers, artists, although artists, particularly humans, can use their autonomy to say that they are artists, whether their viewers agree or not. These artists are making art because they have viewers who can accept their works as art, even if there may be differences amongst the latter’s views.
I believe that these creators are all artists or painters because they have the skills to make art and viewers who can accept their works as art. What makes them artists or painters is that they can create works of art based on their own perceptions of the world and using their painting skills, and that they have audiences who can appreciate their art. Some people might say that chimpanzees or elephants cannot perceive the value and effects of art, but I believe that they have their own ways of expressing art, as these videos prove. In addition, I believe that they are “good” artists to those audiences who see their paintings as “good” works of art because they like the total effect of these works and they find meaning in these paintings.
As for the question of determining if one better than the other, it is hard to answer that because “better” art is in the eye of the beholder. In other words, I do not think that any person, even those who are called art critics and art connoisseurs can absolutely say that one painting or painter is better than the other since, in the end, people, as art consumers have different tastes and preferences in art and they can still choose what they think are “better” art works. Furthermore, determining the “better” art depends on both or either viewer or creator. Some viewers immediately think that human arts are better than animal-made arts because of the preference for the creators. Other viewers, on the opposite, do not consider who/what the painter is and prefer to appreciate art depending