I think the fine arts have to deal with skills that are developed that take practice. In other words, you would not call Picasso's later works "fine art" but you would call the Dutch Master's works that took years to craft, more of the fine art category.
Yes, Picasso did spend years developing his style, and his early works were certainly as good as any fine art artist, but he free-formed and created his own style, which probably could be much more easily copied than anything Rembrant did.
I looked up a definition on the web and came upon this ludicrous explanation of Fine Art.
fine art
/ˌfīn ˈärt/
noun
1.
creative art, especially visual art whose products are to be appreciated primarily or solely for their imaginative, aesthetic, or intellectual content.
"the convergence of popular culture and fine art"
2.
an activity requiring great skill or accomplishment.
"he'll have to learn the fine art of persuasion"
I will agree with number 2. Number 1 totally contradicts number 2.
I think of it in terms of the "fine arts" vs. the "practical arts", or useful arts. The latter being carpentry, drafting, house painting, plumbing, electrical work, making furniture, glassware, clothing, carpets. While the former would not have primarily a practical use but would be for aesthetic or emotional enjoyment like art, music, theatre, creative writing, dance, etc. Of course there would be a certain amount of overlap.
officegirl 