Cane (Antonio Smith) asked the question the other day about what exactly fine art was....which was some good food for thought cause honestly, i didn't know what the hell it was either! at least technically i didn't....i thought and still think that fine art is a matter of quality, if it will last a long time and its beautiful, then it's fine... but i checked the American Heritage dictionary which said it was "art produced or intended primarily for beauty rather than utility.” It also said,” any of the art forms, such as sculpture, painting, or music, used to create such art. Often used in the plural."

Then I checked Dictionary.com which said it was " a visual art considered to have been created primarily for aesthetic purposes and judged for its beauty and meaningfulness, specifically, painting, sculpture, drawing, watercolor, graphics, and architecture."...so putting these definitions together, it seems that fine art is art for the sake of art, which would not include art for fashion, art on dishware or art on rugs because these items also have uses other than the art itself; the art is secondary to the main purpose of the object. ...but then the question that comes to my mind looking at this last definition, is how then is architecture considered fine art? since by the definition, fine art is "created primarily for aesthetic purposes"?????......how confusing!...so on that note, i say screw that definition until it gets its head together!......at the end of the day, fine art is art for art’s sake. has the question been answered?
siona