Fine art is just marketing mumbo jumbo. It is a term used by people trying to sell prints of photographs and denote them from any other kind of photographs. The whole process of photography is so broad and deep and there is such a gradient of people who engage in all these different processes with myriad styles that you cannot pigeon hole one as being better than the other. So defining "fine art" is going to be a fruitless effort, a completely subjective term which exists only to help people who are trying to make money in the art world.
The only thing that can really determine whether or not, in the long run, what is sold as "fine art" has true artistic merit in the long run, be it fine or not, is the test of time.
I think a lot of people may be trying to define the term "art", which is one of those things people will always hem and haw about. There are a lot of ways to look at that question, I guess. I always thought of art loosely as anything which makes me think based on some kind of aesthetic impression. Yeah its a terrible, loose definition but then the art world itself is pretty loosely defined.
If I spray a stencil on a wall with spray paint, it can be (though is not by necessity) urban art. If that wall happens to be in my home, on someone elses house, or a government building that meaning can change significantly in each case. Sorry...just being a pissant.
Bookmarks