Quote Originally Posted by iandavid View Post
Not so. It is possible to talk in relatively concrete terms about our reactions to a specific piece or body of work, whether we like it, etc, without ever once trying to define what "fine art" means or whether the work comes within that description.
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.

Quote Originally Posted by iandavid View Post
Re the OP's question, I do not think that it is possible to give any useful definition of what constitutes fine art. Almost everyone defines it differently - I can call anything I want "fine art". You may disagree with my choice, but so what? Who are the art terminology police?
Yes, but i can call anything anything i like, and defend my choices by saying "so what? who are the [fill in whatever you like] police?"
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.