I've always hated that term "fine art". I just get this image in my head of pretentious snobs hanging out at galleries, drinking wine, trying to be seen. And a lot of so called 'fine art' is really crap.. of course, that's my opinion..
To me, fine art can be anything depending on how the viewer interprets it. Example, Henri Cartier Bresson's photos are generally considered 'street' photography, but I don't see how something like that couldn't be considered fine art as well...
Maybe it becomes "fine art" when you put it in a matted frame and mount it on a wall... *shrug* I went to the Getty museum once, they had photos that were all snapshots on the walls, but the catch was, they were from the 40's-50's and presented as the rest of the gallery's art. So does age make them fine art? (they 'were' pretty interesting)