Ed, you have a great point. This is where I've always felt that photography should be divided into two categories: The negative and the print. There are many instances where one can look at a negative and appreciate the vision that the photographer has applied in transcribing the scene. Then there are instances where the negative may be horrid and along comes a skillfull printer who can breath life into the final print. The conundrum that we run into when we try to define "fine-art", is that the term is used so loosely to describe an image. Fine art to one person can mean that the image contains great impact and content. To another, it can mean that the print quality and technicality is flawless despite bad or good composition/content. Being a photographer as well, I've learned to never approach an exhibited image by deconstructing it, because so much time will be spent whining rather than taking in the image for why it was made. I've always felt that the content is solely the decision of the photographer by what he or she envisioned. Although, both the quality in print and the quality in composition directly relates to what the photographer is capable of, over what the photographer is trying to convey. It's an unfortunate fact for us to be able to recognize the deficiencies in a photo (again, up to the viewer's sensitivity). This is the luxury that non-photographers have to bear. They can view an image only for it's content and not have the faintest idea of how great the image was printed.
In summary, fine art represents the Execution. There are those who can make a fine print from an accidental shot which results in fine art. Then there are those who can photograph the scene as intended as well as printing it as intended resulting in fine art. How high of a standard does one want to hold themselves to is the question. As for me, I've chosen the latter.