Fetch, I'm not sure what you're driving at here. My statement referred to the "art" of luthiery. That, in my mind, says that along with great design and flawless execution, the finished object should be able to be played. Now, I haven't held this instrument - I've only looked at it but I am making the educated guess that it is NOT playable. In my mind that puts it in a completely different category than the examples we usually see here.
I "see" art everywhere - in designs of all kinds - be it functional or merely fun. For example, take Stanley Klopfensteins creations. He makes "guitars" from stained glass. They are truly beautiful creations and can actually be played. But because of their inherent limitations, even Stanley just considers them "art". The craftsmanship of the work is impeccable but it's his design that makes them unique.
There's another case that a real craftsman can be an artist. Take the creations of Stickley. His furniture encompasses the essence of the arts and crafts movement though, at the time he created his masterpieces, they weren't seen as much more than functional. Later, when the entire genre could be looked at as a whole, his genius was recognized. He truly was an artist with remarkable craftsman skills. I don't think that time will be as kind to Wishnevsky's designs.
If you reread my post, you'll notice that I put Wishnevsky in the "artist" category not the craftsman category. Why? because his work lacks the care in craftsmanship required to create good instruments. And if there is anything to the "art" of Luthiery it's the ability to create a fine instrument - both in design and function. In fact, creations of furniture, jewlery, music, etc. all benefit from artistic vision and stellar craftsmanship.