Art vs. Pure Aesthetics

While reading the internet encyclopedia of philosophy’s section on aesthetics, many concepts discussed in the article caught my interest. The first main concept which took my interest was the argument pertaining to what differentiates art from pure aesthetics. The author of the article clearly labels the difference between the two to rest solely on the presence of intention, but this definitional difference has room for probability. The article does not go into discussing what art’s intention is to be. Art, in its many forms, can be created with the intention of being aesthetically pleasing to others, to be aesthetically pleasing to oneself, or just for the pure enjoyment of creating it. Art is used as a tool in a variety of settings from keeping kids occupied and entertained in an after school program to “art therapy” in psychiatric wards to help patients struggling with mental illnesses to focus their attention on something constructive. These forms of art usually have intent other than to be aesthetically pleasing to a viewer, but are still considered art forms despite their difference in intent. If art is created without intention is it still considered art? I think that if one finds the piece of art to be aesthetically pleasing it should be considered art despite the fact that it was not intended to be so. Keeping the argument for the presence of intention in separating art from pure aesthetics in mind, is there something that could fall into both categories of art and pure aesthetics, or are the two mutually exclusive?