I’ll have to take your word on how it would bother you, but I think a crucial difference is that in the instance of the cute salt shaker, the instinct is to protect—notice that the word used, “cruel,” is dependent upon how it’s received by the anthropomorphized salt shaker. If I tell the soup, “You’re too cold and have too high a potato-to-clam ratio!”—is it seen as cruel or mean? It seems more like it’s seen as, like you said, hostile—a statement more about my feelings in intent than the “feelings” of the salt shaker in consequence.
I also understand that I may be putting too much emphasis on your particular words, inferring precision where none was intended, so if that’s the case, let me know. But I think in the case of the cute object, I would be seen as a “bully,” whereas in the case of the soup or the painting, I’d be seen as generally unpleasant and critical. To the extent that there’s a victim with the un-cute objects, it’s the person who values them—I have insulted their taste. This is as opposed to the cute object, where the victim is the object itself.
This argument would have to apply to people who were born completely blind, or completely deaf. Just imagine that all humans are echolocation-deaf/blind.