I'm sure that we all know that matters of beauty and enjoyment, unlike morality, can only be justified as relative values.
Seems to be a 'fly in the ointment'? Throwing in the unnecessary and biased comment on your feelings re: 'morality'? If we accept the ointment, the fly might go by unexamined? I, for one, am willing to accept the rest of your 'surety' sans the 'fly'.
My question is this: what is the significance or art as it pertains to the human animal?
The significance of the 'art' that I produce, if you can call it 'significance', is that it is what I do. It is like giving birth to something. It spontaneously 'happens'. I don't 'plan it', generally (and most often when i do, the planned result is not what manifests), it grows and gets born and we have a short relationship and cut it loose to continue living it's own life.
On another tack, I do not divide the world in which I live into 'art' and 'not art'. I don't see 'art', I see beauty.
What is the 'significance' of beauty?
No significance to me other than the state of bliss attendent, it just is (and I do enjoy those moments when I am perceiving such..).
Why should we value notions of beauty and art,
I don't believe in 'shoulds' (nor 'whys'). What is, is. There are those who see 'art' everywhere, and 'value' it as they do.
There are those who see no art anywhere, and the notion of 'value' is irrelevent. And a whole spectrum of Perspectives in the middle.
'Value' appears to be in the 'eye of the beholder'.
and what does art have to say about the human condition?
Give me ten people who see 'art' (a feature of ego/thought/interpretation?) and think that art says something about 'the human condition' (whatever that is), and I'll show you ten different/unique Perspectives about said 'condition'.
'Interpretation' is, aparently, also 'in the eye of the beholder'.