Late to the party, but in my book "Fine Art Tradition" is an oxymoron.

(visual) Art is the sum of image + emotion. A traditional image that might have sparked immense emotion when it was first created, may not as a copy that has become common and familiar. (e.g. is John Constable's "Haywain" fine art when printed on the lid of a box of biscuits). Nor is the technique or technology of the process particularly relevant. Take Hockney. His technique at face value is in many ways child-like. And yet, at an exhibition of his work some (but not all) (probably different for different people) inspires emotion that is far in excess of the technical detail.

Tradition implies repetition, sameness, following. Only images that inspire emotion are art, and the quality and principle of material and technique is not directly proportional to the inspired emotion.

Context is everything. A contemporary image of the mundane (e.g. fish-dock workers 100 years ago) was probably not "art" when it was created. Displayed now to inspire an emotional reaction, it probably is.