A.O. Scott, in his article “Everybody’s a Critic. And That’s How It Should Be,” lays out the case fro the role of the critic in modern society.  Scott himself is a film critic, but he speaks more generally about the arts.

Scott sees art and the aesthetic life as playing a very important role in society.  He criticizes our tendency to push art off to the side of our lives and essentially saying that it’s not that important.
With art thus occupying a central role in society, Scott then asserts that the obligation of each citizen is to participate in the criticism and conversation about that art.  He correctly points out how humans are the only species with the ability to create or appreciate art, and that we should not let that ability go to waste.

People have for a long time acted as critics, but this role was reserved for a select few, including film critics like Scott himself and organizations like the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.  In our modern world however, this role is being democratized, in large part thanks to the internet.  People can now air their opinions with ease to a perceptive audience, and engage with each other about art and their preferences about it.

I agree with Scott that conversations about art, and the aesthetic life in general, are very important to the moral and spiritual well-being of a society.  I’m not sure, however, of the efficacy of these conversations.  The ancient maxim goes: “Of tastes there is no disputing.”  It is beneficial not so much to come to any sort of agreement on artistic idea during our conversations, but rather the conversation itself is what benefits us.