Quote Originally Posted by lee
My take is that Clay probably has the proper perspective on this "fine art" thing.

Clay describes art that has psychological or cultural permanence. In other words it stands the test of time -- like Shakespeare or Bach. Some art can be so tied to its period or culture that it losses its value over time or distance, but during its time or within its culture it can be as important as or more so than that which has survived the ages. In some of my art history classes these two types of art were referred to as temporary or cultural, for those works that lacked permanence and physiological, for the work that survived. One is not necessarily better than the other. An example of a 'great' artist who may not last the test of time is Warhol. The same may be found to be true of the entire Pop Art movement. Meanwhile, the preceding movement, Abstract Impressionism, has never been well received by the general public, but stands a far better chance of surviving for generations to come.

I would be inclined to discount the term fine art and simply refer to art as art, just as i would not discount work that does not survive the ages.