Why criticism?

An art that is successful in recreating and imitating human dialect within an environment that nourishes and encourages its exploration and re-examination holds an obvious importance within any society. Bourriaud comments in Relational Aesthetics "art is the place that produces a specific sociability"... "it tightens the space of relations, unlike tv".

Claire Bishop argues (along with many others) that although the idea of "mending the social fabric" through artistic action is of undoubtable value, a work cannot be solely successful because it embodies this idea in itself.  If these actions and ideas are to exist as "art" then like all art forms there must exist an artistic criteria that works to define it as "art" and simultaneously distinguishes it from other social and cultural activities of a similar nature. Furthermore, concerning the stimulation and circulation of dialogue it is also crucial that there exists critical comparisons between artworks and artists for similar reasons as stated above, to distinguish art from non art and less from more successful art. 

What has been given some attention in regards to criticism is to how a collaboration is carried out. Artists are being judged on how authentically they attempt to represent the particular social models they are exploring and to what degree their creation can potentially manipulate and produce a supportive outcome.  Another existing critique is that instead of the artist engaging in a mutual active collaboration to produce a shared outcome they are merely engaging in collaboration to facilitate the realization of an end product that is essentially documented as their own creation. 

These are a few points i have come across...