Despite not aiming or wishing to, this is always going to end up and an "art Vs craft" debate. It has to, because in order to answer the question you first need to ascertain what "art" is, and are there wood turned items that qualify for the title. IMHO there are some. Not many. But some.
In the view of those that make the distinction where it matters - the actual galleries, Tate Etc., the answer is clearly and resoundingly, "no". How do we know? Because they don't buy/display it. Why? Probably because the retail galleries from which they derive leads on trends are not yet stocking wood turned objects. "Galleries" is often a misleading name for a vendor of what I'll call "created work". The name immediately seems to suggest that everything sold within is "art". Well we know that's not true. Have you seen some of those water colours!
There are wood turned objects in those other great British instituations: the museum. But there's a problem with museums. In the main they are viewed as repositories of artefacts, ephemera, posh objet d'art. The V&A actually has a small but representative (of mainly US turners it has to be said, although Ray Key is there) collection of wood turning. It's never on show. It's archived. And when it was on display it was curated in the context of "hand-crafted" rather than "art".
Of course anybody can ascribe the distinction "art" to anything. Nobody can stop you. But if what you (we) want is for (some) wood turned work to be classified as art then you need to represent it as such and hope that somebody bites.
I have believed for a long time that the primary drive amongst the woodturning world (and for that matter the pottery world - as opposed to "ceramics"...it's much vaunted and valued older sibling) to have the product of our labours classified as "art" is because there's a certain cache to "art", an otherness that would set it apart, and with that comes a bigger price tag. I can see the allure but question the motive.
Far greater men and women than me have argued about the definition of art, and largely failed. The OED makes it clear in what many "art experts" call a "simplistic and unrealistic" fashion. So you can make your own mind up if you want to. But sadly, the final arbiters, the "real" galleries, and by default the people who visit them and allow their personal buying habits to be influenced by what they exhibit remain steadfastly absent of wood turned objects.
If what you actually want is for the true value of your work to be; a) recognised, b) acknowledged, and c) paid for, then that's a different question and in no way dependent upon an "art" tag being attached. All you need for that is to do what you well, do it in a fashion that makes it truly yours and nobody else's, and to find your market. And once found, test the water and charge whatever you can get away with.
If what you actually want beyond all else is for your work to be viewed as "art" then good luck. You'll need it. And a strong back. And a strong constitution. And you probably won't have the time to come on here and navel gaze about it. You'll be too busy rushing around like the proverbial blue arsed fly trying to get the world to notice you.
So in answer to your question, as far as it can be answered: charge what folk will pay. And if, as Mark has already said, you can learn to turn twenty objects in the same time and to the same standard it used to take you all day to achieve for one, you might even earn a small living at it.