Does art need to be intentional or representational to be considered art?

Ever heard the saying "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"? Well that is the simplest way of describing what I believe art to be. Whatever the individual finds to be beautiful or if the work brings them joy to look at then it is art. Art is defined differently by each individual so making rules like it has to be intentional or represent something in life does not make any sense. Another way to look at it is to say that to anyone who is inspired by the specific/hypothetical work finds it to be representational of something in their life. It could represent moral or emotional dilemma. It could feel like it was intentionally created for the viewer. Anything that moves a person and instills a passion in the "beholder" is in my opinion true art. Art is magic and magic is art. Now personally I find that I respond to more representational art than anything else. But to restrict the definition of art to being only representational is foolish. Representational art is easier for me to apply to my life and helps me to better understand it and appreciate it. Abstract art is beautiful and to some it is the only way they make their work. This is a totally acceptable type of art as long as it brings out a passion or deeper meaning for the individual. Nature can create art too. The sunset, the ocean, natural disasters are all art that our creater has made for us. Art is in the eye of the beholder too not just beauty!