Art Criticism

I started to read, In Relation to the Whole by Rackstaw Downes. I am very excited. The reason is I never thought to evaluate the Art Critic. The most I've known, probably learned from my Travel Soccer days, is if you get a bad review, practice more and make sure you're prepared to kickass next time. However, what if the art piece is not par to the critics standards of Art? Is it even worth to impress the professional if it deviates from the artist's truest intention?
Art used to be viewed in a Hegel Philosophy, which is learn from the past to determine the future. At one point Art was considered sublime when it redressed antique art. In other words study from the masters to out do their work. There also seemed to be security for artists to conform to the trends and movements of their time which continously aimed to improve the quality of art. Which may be necessary practice for an artist to survive. Although it was the plucky artists who made the strongest statments against conformity of the different art movements
I feel as though the Hegel way of thinking may be inadequate because I believe a person is not in direct competition with the past to eventually conform to present standards. I believe a person should be influenced by a master but develop his own body of work. Perphaps the most valuable criticism reflects on the Artist's commitment to his study and how well he achieved his goal.
When evaluating an art piece, I do my best to be honest. I want first the person to explain her piece. The first thing I look for is reflection. With great reflection exists time, observation and development of skill. Technique and quality are important because there is a dialogue between the artist and the viewer. The Artist should strive for the best possible dialog to deliever her message to the viewer. Because the delivery of the message gives art strength and meaning whether it is personal or universal. By delivery, I mean composition, style, skill, time, and motivation.