Defining Literature Part 1

Can we define “literature” without first defining “art”? If “literature” falls under the umbrella term “art”, can “literature” also have its own sub-umbrella of various literary works? If “art” actually does fall under the umbrella term “aesthetic”, as some might suggest, must all of these works underneath "art"  be considered “aesthetic” as well, or only some of them? Does "art" in and of itself have to be "aesthetic"? Is that actually a necessary condition, or merely a desirable one which makes a work more successful? By "aesthetic" I here mean to enrich or enhance an experience, but that definition is clearly not agreed upon. If it was, it should not be that difficult to include non-fiction works as well as the fiction ones. And yet, fictional works seem to be much more widely agreed upon as "literature" while many non-fiction ones are more controversial. Subjective opinions and ideas tend to make a big mess out of aesthetics, because what might enhance or enrich one persons' experience may have the opposite effect on another. Much of the time, many works of fiction are agreed upon by different people. However, while one person might thoroughly enjoy the autobiography of Mark Twain and find it very aesthetically pleasing, another might find it simply boring and a waste of time. This makes using the term "aesthetic" very difficult while trying to create a concrete definition for "literature". What is the true correlation between the terms "literature", "art", and "aesthetic"?