Not really ... that doesn't negate it being aesthetically pleasing or challenging but it isn't created so certainly isn't human art unless it is altered in some way. I have a piece of driftwood which I like to look at and think it looks artistic but twasn't created ... If I pick a bunch of flowers and stick them in a vase that wouldn't be art .,,.... would it?
Point is if you are going to have a museum defined as a holder of art works, you have to have rules as to what gets in and what stays out. Not necessarily that these rules constitute the best definitions for what is art, toilets and bathtubs, but something.
If you find something and do something creative with it like: carve it, sand and finish and reshape it, decorate it, paint it. Then you can call it art. If you just find something great created by nature or chance you can call it a thing of beauty. if you take great photos of it you may have created great art.
There is plenty of support in the history of modern and contemporary art for calling it art as long as there is an intervention with artistic intent. The very act of removing it from its natural context may be enough of an intervention: There are no rules about what is a valid intervention with artistic intent.