Yes all of the pieces you have shown here are definitely Art and very nice pieces too, but it's not the functionality that makes them art, it's the communicative qualities the artist (Yourself) has placed into the objects. So in other words if you remove the functional element of the piece, it would still be considered art, but if you removed the communicative elements from them they most likely wouldn't be. It would just be a blank generic plate and a plain pitcher, the function would be just as practical in a $2 mass produced plate or a 2$ pitcher. People didn't pay for the function or perceived the function as the item's true value, they payed for the form and appearance which is the communication that you infused as an artist into each piece.

Each of the items you have shown share the relationship I outlined, and indeed form a triangle of communication. Between Yourself the Object and the Viewer. What function does the Monalisa serve? A Vermeer? Michelangelo's david?. Though I think you may be slightly missing my point as I have not really communicated it very clearly, I'm not saying Art cannot be functional, look at examples like Architecture. I'm trying to say that it's not the functionality that makes a piece "Art". Art doesn't need functionality to be considered Art. But it is it really Art if instead of a triangle, you only have a two fold relationship such as Item-User, with the absence of a creator's touch or artistic communication through the form and appearance.

Here are two lamps where the function is basically the same but one is built purely for function and most likely cost efficiency, the other is artistic and communicates with the viewer as a thing of interest. If the both lamps stopped working one would still be considered to have value, would likely be worth repairing and still be a thing of beauty even if it was irreparable, whereas the other would be landfill. What makes them different?