There's art, and then there's Art, and of course fine art, and also Fine Art, which BTW is different than Find Art, which is a children's book with very complicated and colorful illustrations, in each of which a certain Canadian photographer and his camera is hidden.
I see the term 'fine art' all the time in the photography world, but I truly have no idea what it actually is. When I think of a 'fine art' portrait, I think of a model sitting in a classical pose on the end of a settee, with some low key lighting, and rich jewel toned colored fabrics. Or I think of some abstract photo that would be hanging in some expensive, swanky New York or Beverly Hills loft space. Whether or not that is actually what 'fine art' is or not I don't know, but those are the images that the words bring up in my mind when I hear the words.
A lot of photographers use the term and according to Wiki, 'fine art' photographs are created solely for aesthetic purposes, unlike photojournalism photos which are created to tell a story. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_art
Is there an actual definition to Fine Art, or has the term become so mainstream and muddy that it is an 'umbrella' term now, covering many different styles of photographs? Does the method of printing (i.e. canvas, b&w, mounted) define it as 'fine art'? Or is it a particular style of shooting/lighting?
Oh lord. This has been debated so many times Always ends the same way: to each his own.
I will say this: Those photographers who describe their own work as "fine art" risk invoking all manner of visceral reactions. My advice is to avoid the term as you would the plague, ebola, amoebic dysentery, or a staph infection. You must strive to cleanse yourself of all pretense and resist any attempts by others to adhere bleak diagnoses to your work. "Fine art" is a fundamentally useless term now.... just in my opinion.