There is a natural animosity between critics and artists. Very few artists want to have their work, or more deeply, their soul, explained, categorized and named by another. In the work / writing (Arts, Studio International) of someone like Donald Judd, who was both, it seems almost schizophrenic. He is often used as the most typical example of Minimalism and he refused to accept the term for himself, though he helped to define that name in his criticism.
It is a fact that fame and fortune for the artist are mitigated by the gallery / museum system in place. Too often the financial motivation of a museum to sell itself and build it's endowment is seen in their over stating the case for whatever new artist they have just spent a lot of money collecting.
Too often, bad criticism falls into the same trap, looking to be the next Clement Greenberg focusing the world's attention on the next Jackson Pollack or David Smith and by reflection on themselves.
Still, there is a role for someone who thinks seriously about aesthetic issues and is willing to tell the truth as they see it. If they are very good, they can illuminate aspects of works that other did not immediately catch. If they are outstanding critics, they can do this in simple language that anyone can understand. And if they have the courage of their convictions, they will help us differentiate between a naked empress and one in an Yves St. Laurent gown.
Does art go on without critics? Sure. But every time I read about someone saying we have to educate the public to appreciate what we potters do, I think that there is a job for a critic.
I think that an examination of the works on display at the Frank Lloyd Gallery web site http://www.franklloydgallery.com/dynamic/artist_list.asp gives an opportunity to see what is greatly right and greatly wrong with ceramic art in this county at this time. Select any/all of the works...many major names are there.