"I made this print, here it is on display. I don't need you to like it, buy it, use it to sell shampoo, worship it, or anything else ".
It's art for art's sake.
Isn't it true that once the work is put on display in a public place (gallery, book etc.) - and most of us are responsible for this decision ourselves - we purposefully seek to evoke responses? These responses, then, constitute 'ends'. We may not 'need' the responses that you list, but we're looking for some outcome or end - otherwise, why put them in that public place? Unless you're saying that it makes no difference at all to art whether or not it provokes any response or has any outcome - a situation I find hard to imagine.
An alternative might be to keep the work hidden from public view, but then I can't imagine how the work would enter the category 'fine art', as it wouldn't ever enter that arena (unless, somehow, being hidden was part of its meaning - a possibility which Duchamp did explore).
In short, the work only exists in a meaningful way in relation to things other than itself. Whether intended by the artist or not, this relationship will lead to a diversity of 'ends'. Unless you bury it 10 meters beneath a field, and then forget where you buried it!
The concept 'art for art's sake' is terribly problematic, principally because - as we've seen lots of times in this thread - art is so many things. So the term does nothing to close the concept 'art' down - except that historically, it was used to suggest that - as you say - art was an end in itself. As a term, it was already in trouble by the late 19th century. (Though I'd certainly accept that this doesn't mean that you could not revive it - just that it's fraught with difficulty.)