Fine Art vs. Illustration: Some Views as an Artist/Illustrator

Yes, there's a distinction between fine art and illustration.
No, that distinction isn't a matter of quality, it's one of intent.
Fine art is art for art's sake, art intended to be art.
Illustration is still art, art meant to illustrate a text or a concept.
However, the two MAY overlap.
For instance, I'd have Tolkien's illustration of "The Hill: Hobbiton-across-the-Water" hanging on my wall. Was it meant to be fine art? No, not really. Might it be considered fine art? Possibly.
Another thing…
I get annoyed when some folks argue illustration isn't really a form of art.
Yes, fine art and illustration are two different forms of art with different intentions, but both are still forms of art.
As an illustrator, I can tell you a lot of ART goes into many of my illustrations.
As an illustrator who has, on many occasions, intended his illustrations to be art, I'm living proof that the distinction between fine art and illustrative art might be nebulous at best.
Yes, such a distinction exists, but it's not always a hard line between the two.
If the distinction between fine art and illustration is a matter of an artist's intent, and if fine art is art done for the sake of doing art, then if an artist says they intended for their illustration to also be art, ipso facto their illustration is also fine art.
Far too many people live in a black and white world when the real world is full of many shades of gray (not to mention numerous hues of various colors).
Let me clarify my views regarding fine art and illustration…
Yes, I see that there is a distinction between the two, mostly involving intent.
No, I do not see that distinction as a hard black line separating the two ad infinitum.
I see it as a gray area.