It sounds like the class is talking about that age old "What is art" question. "Fine Art Perspective" can mean a lot of things, but it sounds like he's comparing how different groups with different interests hold certain standards for what qualifies as 'good' art, or even art in general.
A curator might view an art piece based on how closely it follows popular art trends, how marketable it is, and how much traffic it can bring to their gallery.
An art historian might view the same art piece based on the time period/context under which it was made, the artist's supposed underlying message, and how successfully that message was conveyed.
An individual who happens across the same piece might consider it art solely because it looks nice or inspires them, ignoring the previously mentioned factors.
Different time periods/locations in art history had different standards for what was considered "fine art" though, so I can't be sure which definition your professor is going by. Did they give a specific definition/examples of 'Fine Arts Perspective'? It's probably something that will be elaborated on eventually.
At least that's what it sounds like he's trying to say from what you mentioned. It's been a while since I've sat in on an Art History course so I might be off lol.