If something has an audience who consider it to be art then it's art (at least for that particular audience). If something has an audience who consider it to be 'fine art' then it's fine art (again, for that particular audience). If that something happens to be a photograph then it's a fine art photograph.
But you're taking the concepts away. Trying to avoid them.
Yet you said "the most worthwhile discussions about art generally relate to specific pieces or bodies of work"
And that's what i responded too.
And the response stands: the concepts are still the same [etc.].
So yes: So. ;)
Where would that leave us?
This section of APUG goes under the heading of "Ethics and philosophy".
It should be a given then that participants do care, and not shrug discussion with "so what"s and "who is going to force me"s.
Nobody is going to twist your arm.
And "so what" is not very on topic, unless you can say also why "so what", and be prepared to discuss that.
Anyway, if we don't try, we cannot, no.
So let's try.
Is that so?
Is art only art when it is the result of blood sweat and tears? Do artist have to suffer to be able to produce art?
I don't believe that for one moment.
And i have taken great effort, gone all the way, exhausted myself to arrive at that conclusion. ;)
The Wikimonster takes yet another victim!
A long time ago, people thought that what was true was what someone who knew said was true.
A bit later, someone said it had to be in accordance with the world to be true. Adaequatio ad rem, and all that.
Later still, it was changed to "true is what conforms to observation in most cases". Truth became a statistical matter.
We apparantly left that stage behind us, and moved on from "most cases count" to "most votes count".
A Wiki is an example of that, with an aditional clause, saying that the access to internet and time to spend editing wikis adds to veracity.
A Wikipedia article as a reference?
Fy on you!
The content of the Wikipedia link is just another illustration of the fact that there is no universally accepted definition of the term "fine art". It means different things to different people, and is, at least in the context of photography, essentially a marketing term. For that purpose the Wiki reference is perfectly legitimate.
What makes a fine art photograph?
Homo sapiens sapiens.
But however it may be with Wikis, we do not have a universally accepted definition for most of our concepts. What, say, "freedom" would be differs from (sub-) culture to (sub-) culture, from person to person even.
Doesn't stop anyone talking about it, writing books about it, holding believes about it, longing for it, fighting for it, etc. Nor, of course should it.
And why would it be a problem anyway?