I don't know what to say - is article-writing like photography, somewhere beyond criticism?
Many artists & writers benefit enormously from constructive criticism by peers & even by the evil people called critics. I belong to a group (the Bay Area Photographers Collective) that offers valuable constructive criticism in two ways - (1) monthly peer-review gatherings, & (2) occasional outside critiques by accomplished photographers, editors, & teachers. Two of our best critics happen to be art teachers/faculty members - the group that gets such a bad press in the Myers article. They aren't 'failed artists,' as far as I can tell; they've looked at thousands of images; & their viewpoints are genuinely insightful. They're good teachers who help artists grow.
For many of us, working with a critique group speeds up the creative process, because of our natural tendency to 'love all our children' - to accept too many repeat performances & personal cliches as significant work. Nothing helps me more than having thoughtful & constructive viewers (1) point out my tendencies toward what psychologists call 'repetition compulsion,' & (2) urge me to see more clearly what is new or emergent in my work.
One specific example: Just last week one of those dangerous art-school critics - a thoughtful & feelingful fellow who's quite a bit younger than I - offered two constructive criticisms of a new portfolio of my documentary work: (1) the more use I made of the kind of wide & deep space that seems to envelop the viewer, the more successful the images seemed to be; and (2) some of the transitions in the portfolio from one point of view to another were too abrupt & need filling in. You'd have to see the work to decide if you'd agree with him, but my own take was that he was right on. Because of gallery scheduling, the work won't be shown for many months; & as I work on the project in the interim, I plan to take these two criticisms very much to heart.
Another example, less specific: At a college where I taught, a beginning photo instructor offered a course focusing not just on technical stuff, but on helping students to recognize photographic cliches. Her course was a rewarding game that taught beginners to sort out their 'deja-vu-all-over-again' images from the ones that might evolve into an original & personal portfolio. Her students carried a healthy distrust of cliches into their advanced work.
Overall, because I appreciate criticism & have been helped a lot by it, some of the article just didn't ring true to me. The connection between our money economy & the function of criticism seemed loose & overblown. A number of separately valid points got mixed into what sounded at times like an anti-critical rant: (1) some critics are better than others; (2) some Internet criticism is thoughtless & feelingless (or just inexperienced?); (3) the art market isn't a great guide to making satisfying images; (4) learning isn't linear; (5) constructive citicism is of course better than destructive - etc. But the tone bothered me, because I really don't want to become paranoid about criticism. The more of it I can take in - assuming the source is repectful & honest - the better for me.
(In the interest of full disclosure, I'll mention that I'm one of the untrustworthy people who's been known to teach art.)