It seems you're presenting 'what a critic is' as if it's the definition, not presumably what it is - one of a large number of different/competing ideas of what

It seems you're presenting 'what a critic is' as if it's the definition, not presumably what it is - one of a large number of different/competing ideas of what critics are/should be. E.g. (spends 2 seconds googling) Wikipedia says "art criticism, which is concerned with establishing a relative artistic value upon individual works with respect to others of comparable style, or sanctioning an entire style or movement from the standpoint of its history and of its major scholars." - ok, not authoritative, but at least establishing that a view/understanding contrary to yours is widespread: criticism is centrally concerned with whether the piece is good or bad. And the sentences on reviewers seems resentful, even angry. But I'll give you a Thumbs Up :-)