Not so fast.
What's interesting (to me, anyway) is that this distinction, while useful, suggests a dichotomy that isn't easily maintained once certain cultural assumptions are called into question. It's easy to assign objects to convenient categories - even necessary. But the "divide" between art and craft hasn't always been so historically obvious. Both are examples of making, both involve creativity, problem-solving, an aesthetic sense, particular skills and ability to manipulate materials. In other cultures and times, items of "use" have often also been objects of aesthetic importance or enjoyment. I think precisely the intersection between so-called "art" and "craft" - right where the categories blur, is quite revelatory, at least potentially.

The intelligent mechanic engaged in his job, interested in doing well and finding sasisfaction in his handiwork, caring for his materials and tools with genuine affection, is artistically engaged. The difference between such a worker and the inept and careless bungler is as great in the shop as it is in the studio. Oftentimes the product may not appeal to the esthetic sense of those who use the product. The fault, however, is oftentimes not so much with the worker as with the conditions of the market for which his product is designed. Were conditions and opportunities different, things as significant to the eye as those produced by earlier craftsmen would be made. - John Dewey, "Art As Experience"