Well allow me to retort. 
To me, the 58-60 Les Pauls are indeed works of art. If we are being philosophical let me ask - if no one sees the Mona Lisa is it still a work of art?
Well, in fact this is not philosophical at all! You just have to answer these series of questions and you will find the answer.
First of all, can we define what is consider to be a work of art?
Is the definition generally accepted?
If only one man thinks that something is a work of art, is that sufficient, to name it as such?
Do all people like the same works of art?
All in all, is the term "work of art" an honorary term or a term that reveals some function? (an new aesthetic proposition, an education method or an early guide to the labyrinths of art itself?)
Now the second part.
Can we consider something that was created and then destroyed to be a work of art?
Now, if a "work of art" does not influence at all the public, is it still a work of art?
And last but not least, how art works for each generation?
As for the guitar matter, I think that guitars are objects that a person spends many precious moments with. They are almost magical things, that turn the obscure and complicated inside world of a person into an audible equivalent that we all think we understand. As such they are closer to magic wands, rather than works of art. Now, the marketing strategy of the guitar makers, thought that strange shapes would probably help boost the sales. So the actaul shape of most guitars, could be considered a work of art. But then again, we have to agree on what is a "work of art".
