> The decline of the professional art critic is lamentable, but it also doesn't really seem like it should be a job in the first place.

What makes the professional role of "art critic" special that it should not be a job? Compare it with other professional roles: lawyer, software engineer, accountant, architect. They all involve understanding historical context and producing a professional opinion.

Essentially, the argument is that the critic merely serves as an effectively plain data series of opinion, for which consumers try to find one with low variance with their opinion, but that ultimately there's no accounting for taste.

When aesthetic theories try to argue that there is a "correct opinion," one that would justify a kind of professionalism and training, then there are myriad philosophical problems that fall out the other side. This is effectively the basis for Howard Moskowitz's success in data-first food/flavor design.

It's certainly true that critic education can help map those opinions onto audience opinions (getting references, understanding the historical background, etc), but those frames aren't necessary for enjoyment if the audience following your critiques doesn't also have that information. Many will, which will increase the correlation of opinion.

Book critic does not belong with architect and accountant, jfc. Come on. Get real.