Speaking of critics, I think Jim Lewis hits upon what I understand is Aristotle's method of criticism; that is to judge the play as a whole work, not the performance by one actor or one aspect of the work.
I do think that if we are to critique a golf course, it has to be on the merits of the whole course and its overall function in its own context, not the repututation or noteriety of the archie (actor) or individual holes (scenery or individual lines of dialogue in isolation).
We as consumers are the Hoi Polloi. We can't be expected to know everything first hand. Thus we seek out critics who we perceive as knowledgeable to sift and winnow through the issues of judging a work of industry or art, or our government, and we try to familiarize ourselves with critics that reflect our values, and listen to their opinions before we commit or experience for ourselves. Sometimes the critics opinions fit our sensibilities, sometimes we reject them. But, if we are careful, we consider the opinions rendered by the knowledgeable critic, and the qualifications of the critic.
The artist, actor, writer, or person who produces something being judged by the critic then has the choice of how to respond. One can defend the criticism and remain status quo or stagnant, or concede and collaborate to improve or change.
Do critics protect the Hoi Polloi from the tyranny of the artist or ruler? Or, do they become the tyrannts?