Decorative Art or Fine Art?

The most common definition for "decorative" art is an object that has a practical function but is created with a strong component of beauty or artistic content. Many feel that an object cannot occupy both worlds, fine art and decorative art, at the same time. This got us to thinking about the implications of the definition of the term as well as the ambiguity of so many descriptive terms in the art world.

Is fine art permanently banished to the realm of objects that have no purpose except to be gazed upon and admired? Is any object with a purpose unable to be considered fine art no matter how beautiful it is?

Google defines fine art as, "creative art, especially visual art, whose products are to be appreciated primarily or solely for their imaginative, aesthetic, or intellectual content." This definition definitely implies that the sole purpose of fine art is to be looked at and appreciated for its content. We recently met Brad Martin, a leather artist in Taos, New Mexico, who is working to elevate leather art to the level of fine art. His boots, pictured here, are indeed worthy of existing only to be looked at. But they also are capabel of a lifetime of wear. So if the definition here is true, does this mean that if we put these boots on a pedistal and never allow anyone to wear them they become fine art?

Just to confuse the discussion further, another definition of "decorative" art from the folks at OSNAT Fine Art is “A piece of decorative art is something that is solely intended to be displayed to compliment a room. “ Meaning that the "decorative" art piece has no purpose except to be admired.

It seems that, like so many terms that are used to describe art, the meaning varies depending on the individual who is using them, And is that not fitting, that art terms are as variable as the interpretations of the person viewing the art piece? Perhaps the lack of solid definition is part of the beauty of the word. Appropriate, don't you think?