I believe the critic's role is changing due to literacy more than anything else. As people are more culturally aware, they're more able to intelligently evaluate the experiences they're having for themselves, and rely on their own opinions to guide their viewing, reading, and purchasing decisions. For most, critics have ceased to become gateways to art, and have taken on more of a spectacle role, one of "Ooh, what's Ebert going to bash this week?"
Most people I know, when talking about professional critics, only consider them in terms of, "Do I agree with this person's taste? Should I value their opinion as such?" any more. The idea that critics are more informed or have any greater authority than the average viewer is generally no longer considered.
An increasing thing I have been noticing consumers valuing critics for is validating and articulating their own already-formed opinions. A lot of people don't really even look at Rotten Tomatoes or individual film reviews until after they've already seen the movie. They'd rather form their opinions unbiased, and then, rather than use reviews to make decisions about the movie, they'll use the movie to make decisions about the critic. And in cases where they agree with the critic, they'll use the opportunity to gain vocabulary and "ammunition," as it were, to solidify their own opinion.
I think professional criticism definitely has a role in the future of the arts, but I think for that to happen, our expectations for what people are reading our reviews for have to change, or vanish altogether.
Christopher Taylor
