I wouldn't say literature is a form of art made
for the eyes. You read with your eyes, if you're sighted, but you can still appreciate literature without seeing words on a page. You can listen to someone else read it, and if you read braille you're still appreciating literature in a way that's a little different but still obviously counts.
To answer your rhetorical question, I don't think there's a form of art that is exclusively made to be appreciated with the tactile sense. But elements of many other arts have a tactile component: for example, cooking isn't just for taste, there's a major tactile component (and a major vision component, and a major smell component).
On a related note, drinking is not just about taste, but about the effect of a substance on your body, how it makes you feel, and so on. The same is true for other substances. What counts as art?
I think architecture has a tactile component: the feel of the materials used, or how a space can make you feel big, or small, or cozy, or cold, etc.
I also think athletics, if we can call athletics an art form, aren't only visual but have a sympathetic physical component—we feel a version of what the athlete we're watching is feeling.
Even music wouldn't be the same without a sense of touch. Feeling music with your body is important, not just hearing it (what's the difference again?). This is especially true for live music, which is to say all music up until pretty recently.
I'm not sure how much I buy all of the above. It's an interesting question though. I think my real answer is: why should we think there has to be? There's no rule that says that for every sense there must be a discrete form of art. It's just a coincidence that we can map different art forms onto different senses, but we can't even do that cleanly, as most of your examples appeal to more than one sense anyway.