[RodericDay]

This seems like to broad of an indictment of criticism in general, and extrapolates way to hard from the original story (which was perfectly alright).

Stop trying to come up with some general theory about all critics who don't build. Some of them will be tools, others have a unique skill. A good example is Pauline Kael, legendary movie critic, who wrote more than a few lines about the role of her profession not simply as a foil for the artist.

It seems to me that the critic's task should be to help people see more in the work than they might see without him. That's a modest function, and you don't need a big theory for it.

There are a million factors that influence execution (luck and randomness are not insignificant either), and there is no natural reason why the critic and the executioner need to be the same agent.

[moron4hire]

I think I can extrapolate well in this case, because I've been in the exact same situation, only the geographic location and particular project were different.

There is a huge difference between a critic and a jerk showing up providing unsolicited criticism. If you publish a movie to the public, you should expect to receive criticism. If you're working on something for yourself in your hackerspace, that's not really an invite to tear you apart.