I happen to enjoy reading art criticism. I will say that it is a masochistic activity that has the advantage of leaving no visible marks. So, as regards the referenced article, I offer the following summary/translation.
1) most critics don't have anything to say about what is unique about photography
2) as an example, Michael Fried's discussion of the work of Thomas Demand focuses on the process of building models of scenes to photograph and not about the photographs themselves*. This is also true of Cindy Sherman and Jeff Wall.
3) most critics don't really understand photography
4) photography hasn't had the "advantage" of an authoritarian figure like Clement Greenberg in painting.**
5) critics favor work such as Demands because the "railroad modeling" gives them something to talk about
6) critics need to understand photography better so they can create a critical approach that addresses the medium***
*duh, Demand is of the school of what I call "model railroaders" who build elaborate sets and then simply document them with a photo. One see this all the time in photo art shows. This comment is not intended to denigrate actual model railroaders.
** Greenberg jammed his theory down many a throat until some began to gag on it and realized that Greenberg's theory really applied to very few actual works with the exception of those savvy enough to ride his coat-tails for his ensuing endorsement or perhaps absorbed his message as a by-product of sleeping with him. But the ensuing "range war" inspired acres of print.
*** seems obvious, but I would advise you not to hold your breath. I say critics will continue to gravitate towards easy narratives rather than tackle the hard stuff. Time is money.