Critic or Medium??

During a recent moment of contemplation while immersed in an article I was writing, I found myself questioning the role of the art critic in the world of contemporary art. With the enormous diversity, constant progression and increasing complexity of modern art the term "art critic" would seem to me to be outdated and invalid and heres why:
The term critique is defined as "A critical review or commentary, especially one dealing with works of art or literature" which basically means outlining the positive and negative points of an artwork. Contemporary art is often so complex and representative that it is open to various different interpretations so a single persons opinion of the positive and negative points of an artwork may be specific to that persons interpretation. The way we interact with artworks these days goes way beyond the purely visual with many artworks stimulating all our senses thus increasing the complexity of the artworks and the way that people interact with them.

These days art critics seem to have undertaken a role more like a medium by which they communicate the feelings, emotions, objectives and experiences associated with an artwork using their knowledge of art and art history to convey these "messages" to people who may not have the chance to experience the artwork or may not be in a position where they are able to fully appreciate and understand the artwork. In a nutshell the critics are now interpreting an artwork as opposed to critiquing it.

The days of right and wrong in the art world seem to be at an end so should the term art critic be changed to art medium??