I think the problem is that you are confusing criticism with conversation.
a) "he is not just making art, he is saying something"
Actually, no. He is making something that means something. He said nothing to you, nor did his ask your opinion. This seems nit-picky, but it will makes sense in a second.
But those art works also always bring comments about the political statement they vehicle.
True, which leads to your next point:
c) No, most likely after seeing that painting your going to comment of abortion
ah, okay, so this leaves us where we are at here at WC.
Even if another visitor challenges your ideas in a museum, you aren't gonna argue there. If you start a rant-fest, they ask you to leave, since you are spoiling the artists venue and the place for the other visitors. No different than a street-corner preacher setting up shop in a library. The place is not about you.
**
SO... the critic writes an objective review. If you pour your criticism full of subjective rant about the *subject* the artist was talking about, then you have failed as a critic. Sure, you might say the artist didn't balance their glorification of war with any of the horrors, but you wouldn't list a half page of those omissions in all-caps. No one is saying you can't be tough on the work, but you aren't there to preach your cause. Criticism, itself is an art.
If you are not a critic, you
go stop in at a bar and mention it, and the guy next to you says you are an idiot and you argue about it. You are now in a conversational, public area designed for interaction. If someone is too fragile for an argument, they don't go there.
**
So that leaves us where we are at WC. The artist didn't *say* anything to you, and it would be vain to think he cares what you think of the overall subject. It would certainly be officious and rude to stand in front of his item and try to tell the world how wrong he is.
Granted, if you bump into him at the bar, feel free to let him have it...
