"The Excellence of Art is It's Intensity" - Keats

I caught some of Who Gets to Call It Art, and some dude whose name I missed declared that art is purely aesthetic, and nothing else. And when it comes to (visual) art I seem to agree with that - of, say, a painting, I ask only that I enjoy the look of it. A fruit bowl, a lighthouse, whatever; if I can look at it and it kinda feels good, cool. I don't look at fine art for any lessons. But in literature, I've prolly leaned more into the Auden camp as opposed to, say, Walter Pater. Walter Pater once said that art does not teach, it moves (paraphrasing.) But of literature and music, I ask that they do BOTH. A piece of music, a book, a poem I ask that it move me in some way AND teach me - be it of the human condition, politics, feelings, whatever. But if I look at a painting I don't ask for that much. Maybe it's as simple (and stupid) as factoring in how much time I invest in each thing? A picture I can take seconds to ingest, while obviously books and music take longer. I'd hate to think it's that simple, but I am a simple man.