Critics are everywhere.
Every aspect of art is immersed in criticism. People make a living off of criticizing works of art.
Isn't criticism merely ones opinion? Why is it that some people get paid for their opinion while others do not?
In every criticism, no one critic can be purely objective.
The human element is always present in a critique, which always leaves a criticism open for bias.
The main thing about criticism to me is, why is one person worthy of telling others what is good or not?
I will say that critics, at least professional ones, seem to have more experience and knowledge of all of the works they've critiqued over time. This knowledge, expertise, and art wisdom cannot be ignored, but the overall criticism is still based off of one persons opinion formed by initial reactions, contemplations and even past experiences.
That being said, criticism will be different for every person because these factors will always be different. I personally believe critique should stay at a personal level. If a piece is beautiful to you, or has some sort of meaning, then let it be beautiful and meaningful. Don't attempt to force your views on other people and get angry when they can't see what you see. Even more so, don't let the opinion of "professional" critics change what a piece means to you.
The only critic in my life is myself, if i enjoy something, that's for me and no one else can change it.
Agree? Disagree? let me know :)