Michael, Michael, Michael, what are you thinking? You've written an essay that mentions the word "Art" again - akin to poking a sleeping javelina with a sharp stick. I can anticipate the squeals of outrage already. See, you awakened yours truly.
That aside, I think I know the feeling that you are trying to communicate. There are occasions when I have taken a photo that just "felt GOOD", perhaps something about the light, maybe my frame of mind at the time, what I had for lunch... whatever. Many times these photos are nothing special to the world at large, but they always have a certain resonance with me, and, as a result, I too put them in some special category - the category label, as you infer, is not important. Is my appreciation of these shots based on the image triggering my feelings at the time of capture? Reflecting on this, to categorize these shots are Art may be to say that an Art Object is simply something that we appreciate or find meaning in and which, in that context of appreciation, has no other function. Actually, this is a definition with which I believe I can be comfortable. Needless to say, the audience size may be one or many, the locus for the experience can be anywhere, and the experience is timeless.
So, as you have done, one may place the above mentioned class of shots in a virtual folder/portfolio called, say, Personally Resonant and let the world sort them out for themselves.
BTW there are postcards that clearly meet several definitions of Art.