Fine Art is barely about the work at all these days, regardless of medium. Quite explicitly. It's about process and narrative surrounding the work as much or more than the work itself.
That is to say, it's explicitly and openly about the bullshitting, not the work.
The market for art that falls between decor and Fine Art is remarkably narrow these days. That is to say, work that we the public think of as Art: creative work that inspires, enriches, provokes, reveals, and so on, and which does so on its own merits, is pretty much a non-entity. It's all pretty much technically brilliant and emotionally dead decor, or pictures of poo with a paragraph about playing with the dialectics of space attached.
Here's a fun game:
Go find a popular and successful contemporary landscape photographer. Go find a portfolio of work. You will find that virtually all of it has a color palette made up either of 1 very narrow swathe of colors, or 2 very narrow and complementary swathes of color. These things are shot to match the couch, and that's why people buy 'em.
The majority of Fine Art photographers are shooting insanely repetitive and boring portfolios around a single not very good idea, and then supplying a raft of text to prop it up and explain why it's important and good. Usually they're shooting with crazy expensive gear and making gigantic prints, to further obscure the fact that they haven't actually got any ideas.
Both of these schools are giving technically excellent photography a bad name. They make me itch. They make me want to drill light leaks in all my cameras and spin the focus ring at random before every shot.