Cultural critics now have an opportunity to provide a real service by reviving objectivity, and giving people an informed opinion rooted in legitimate and honest contemplation. At the same time, it’s harder than ever for them to do that because of all the noise. (And harder for us to know what’s been biased by others.) It’s a paradox, but it’s a paradox that valuable critics will work through. Everyone can be an expert now, but the best critics were always something different altogether.

I've been into reading about the art of criticism in recent days, all of it starting with reading Gissing's New Grub Street quite a while back, so I thought I'd share this link that I found interesting. Some other articles and essays I found of interest:

Oscar Wilde's The Critic As Artist, ca 1891:

http://www.online-literature.com/wilde/1305/

A Short Essay on Critics, by Margaret Fuller ca. 1840:

http://www.berfrois.com/2013/05/short-essay-on-critics-marga.../

The Decline of Book Reviewing, by Elizabeth Hardwick ca. 1959:

http://harpers.org/archive/1959/10/the-decline-of-book-revie.../

An Essay on Criticism, by Alexander Pope ca. 1711

http://poetry.eserver.org/essay-on-criticism.html

As for my opinions on criticism? I can't claim to know so much about the subject to speak with any confidence in it, even after reading all of the above (Sometimes more than once), but I really like what Margaret Fuller said:

The use of criticism, in periodical writing, is to sift, not to stamp a work.

My own opinions on criticism, from my brief readings on the subject, can't be summed up better than that.