"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.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208328\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
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.)