I have to go to bed. The only observation I have time for right now is that there are a number of assumed definitions within your post #54 -I am not sure where to start in responding...
Actually, I do have time for one more thought. Art is, to at least a very large extent, about artist intention and viewer perception. Powerful pieces of art will perhaps often enjoy a coincidence of what the artist intended and what viewers perceive in the work. But I think it is possible for an "artist" to intend something that nobody perceives. And it is also possible for a "craftsman" to consciously intend nothing in particular, but for great depth or meaning to be nevertheless widely perceived in the work. In either case, the work might legitimately be called art. How does one decide whether a picture truly objectively has no subject but the prettiness of the picture itself? That might be your personal opinion, but why should I care what you think if I perceive a deeper subject or meaning? (The artist may not be available or willing to confirm whether or not his work is in fact "meta fine art".) One man's garbage is another man's art. Of course, not all art is good art (in my opinion).
Your definition of fine art is now so narrow that most people would probably agree that, as you define it, it is not in fact art. Or alternatively, if it is art, it is bad art. In the context of photography, on your definition, fine art is pure craft - the picture without any possible depth or meaning for anyone.