“I think that the difference between a good critic that makes art and a bad critic that should quit is that a good critic understands the difference between an objective analysis and his own opinion. Good critics are willing to take ownership of their work by acknowledging that they may be wrong. By taking ownership of their work and acknowledging that the fault might be with them and not the artist that they’re critiquing, they make themselves vulnerable to the critique of their audience, thus becoming artists themselves.
Bad critics throw knives over the wall and say that the whole world is on their side. Good critics will climb over the wall and stab you personally.”
Criticism is necessary for the progress of any art, methinks. Good critics know this and do their work for the sake of the art, for the sake of the artist, and for the sake of the artist’s audience (which may include the critics themselves). But I don’t think good critics should do their work completely for themselves (apart from being a part of an artists audience). Such work is parasitic, and parasites are generally harmful to their hosts (in this case, the artists that bad critics have decided to latch onto).