Why paint oneself in a corner with a definition and argue ad infinitum? Just make GOOD ART and market yourself properly to get your work out there. As they say in my home country..."Se son rose, fioriranno"...literally translated: "If they are roses, they will flower".
Last time I walked into a "Fine Art" photography gallery it was on Maui, and the nomenclature in discussion was inextricably linked to total suckers with lots of money to waste climbing off cruise ships and getting softshoed into some frightfully overpriced amateurish abomination that would look appropriate hanging next to their other half on an art collection, namely, their black velvet Elvis rug.
I once overheard a woman in a private art gallery in conversation with her friend say “but darling, they’re all so affordable”.
Well Tom, my aunt did do frescos in catherals, and even designed a cathedral once. Just about everything she did is now on the Nat'l Historic Register. She also had four phD's, one of them in
art history. But you should have heard her poking fun at all the pretension and cornball artsy vocabulary that was rife even back then. We got along.
That's a long topic, Tom. Basically, some of both. Lots of the classic murals were done under WPA auspices, so had to be something of public interest. At the same time artists' were rebelling, which
at that point in history amounted to Social Realism, which was abhorred by many as a Commie plot, but backed by FDR, and now considered part of our mainstream natl heritage, except for a few Tea
Party crackpots who actually want them demolished. Her personal work ranged much wider in subject
and media choice, and really cannot be commercially valued because it's all locked up in major museum or private collection, and never comes up for sale. But things haven't changed much. I've
had directors of major museum sitting at my dinner table cracking jokes about all the stupid artspeak
going around, and all the idiotic things they themselves do just to pique public interest and sell