It seems to me there are two facets of art, the act of creation, and the act of experience. They might revolve around the same singularity, but have utterly different reasons, meanings, and purpose. Defined, "fine art" is usually considered art that carries a visual aesthetic, as opposed to "art" which includes music, theater, performance art, literature, and any other way the vast expressions by which artists satisfy whatever reason they feel the need to create. There is no pretention, no requirement for relevance or craft involved. The phrase simply denotes visually oriented art.
Craft has nothing to do with art. It might be part of creating art and fine art, but it might also be part of creating a mundane utilitarian object or display. For the artist, craft is a means to an end. Setting type isn't writing a book, although a typesetter might still aspire to create art with their typesetting. If an artist sets out to create art, and in their own mind manages to succeed in the expression, they have created art (or fine art, as the case may be) and someone else's subjective view (i.e. "that's not art") is only valid if the artist accepts it. There is plenty of art, particularly photography (fine art by definition), that is art to an audience of one. If someone creates or "crafts" something for a purpose other than art (or fine art) and an observer sees it as art, it is art, even if only to that person. Art can be popular and considered by many to be art, or it can be completely disregarded by all but the artist or an observer (listener, feeler, whatever), or it can fall anywhere in-between. If think something is art and you don't, or visa-versa, we are both right. Because art is completely and utterly subjective in this manner, attempts to define art by litmus ("this is art, that is not") will always fail, except for personally, where they are unerringly correct.
Art is in the intent of the creator or the eye of the beholder, or both.
That's my two cents. YMMV