Despite the insistence of a distinction, art and entertainment are fundamentally the same domain - stimulation for it's own sake.
Yes, art claims loftier goals (culture versus commerce), but if you examine the history it is usually entertainment that has met those goals more effectively - Shakespeare, Dickens, Ella Fitzgerald... all entertainers who achieved artistic and cultural significance from within a commercial medium. Perhaps the paradigm case would be to note that The Beatles had more influence than Yoko Ono, although this is open to various objections, of course.
People who work in entertainment, such as commercial videogames, fool themselves into believing what they do is art and thus sometimes forget their role as entertainers. People who work in the art world deny what they do is entertainment, yet still hope to collect gigantic fees for the sale of their work in auctions, thus undermining the commercial distinction between the two spaces.
Art and entertainment are fundamentally the same: money is charged for stimulation. The key points of contrast are a claimed difference of intent (that often vanishes on closer inspection), radically different audiences, and a distinction in the role of prestige within their respective business models. (An artist uses their prestige to increase the value of single sales, while an entertainer also tries to leverage greater volume of sales).
Honestly, I suspect entertainment might be the more honest of the two.