FINE ART PHOTOGRAPHY
The most puzzling thing about so-called Fine Art photography is how many people have really fixed ideas about it; who want to define it; and who even think that there are only certain things it is allowed to be. The last camp often have fixed ideas about what photography is or isn't or should be, and range from die-hard supporters of the worst of old-fashioned camera club judging standards to those who reject everything as old fashioned, dull and predictable if anyone has ever done anything remotely like it before. They don't care if it's done well: they care only that it is new to them.
Footprints. Is this "fine art" If not, what is it? An illustration for an article on the patterns on shoe-soles? It reminds me of several things including Babylonian bas-reliefs and aerial shots of deserts. Part of "fine art" can be opening your mind to new ways of seeing.
Some people like to define "fine art" in opposition to "applied photography". There are however countless subdivisions of applied photography, from news to portraiture, which is why this distinction immediately falls flat on its face. Cartier-Bresson? Raghu Rai? Sebastiao Salgado? Karsh of Ottawa?
Also, when does a "fine art" picture became an (applied) illustration? Was Ansel Adams a fine art photographer or just a propagandist for the Sierra Club, and an illustrator of his own "how to" books?
Others go for "pictures you want to put on your wall". Quite unlike pictures of your loved ones, then; or of places you visited and want to remember; or even of yourself when you were young. These can happily sit on your walls with the finest (or Finest) of fine art. Not necessarily the same wall, but entirely possibly on another wall. Once again, this is a failure as a definition until you redefine it as "stuff I want on my wall that isn't personal". Even then you may have some difficulties in defining "personal".