There was an episode of In Our Time about cave art that features a discussion about the art not being solely for utility. Unfortunately I cannot find a transcript and I can't remember when the discussion came up. Still, if you are interested you might want to listen or look at some of the further reading links. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000mqn7

> "did they appreciate things purely for aesthetics and cultural relevance, and not utility?"

Many animals do, even sharing their sense of aesthetics with human taste. Just look at how flowers evolved to some form even we find pleasing without any skin in the game, or how animals that live in total dark (deep sea, for example) are atrociously ugly.

Why do you say they evolved with our taste? Isn't it just as likely we have tastes that suit what happened to evolve naturally?

I didn't say that at all. I said they evolved to their current form, which we happen to enjoy.

I think "create art" and "value art" are essentially equivalent in the context of the question we are pondering. You cannot argue they made art if there was none to appreciate it as art; art doesn't exist without an observer.