Response to Duncans question: Why do people need to be told what to think about art in the first place, why do we need critics in our newspapers and online?

A critic's role is wide and varied, It can range from interpreting a piece of artwork to reviewing a new book. I will just get to the point in the matter here. Sometimes people are lazy and impatient. Sometimes people just don't have the time or don't want to spend the time reading a book that might potentially be bad, or go see a movie that sucks. People use critics as a means of convenience, to sort of get a judge of the artform before seeing it. It is not so much as critics telling people what to think, but the people asking for the critics opinion and that piece of artwork.  People can also be very unobservant at times, and when viewing a piece of art, a critics view of the art can help the viewer understand the art easier as well.  Critics who tell people 'this is what you have to think,' in my opinion, are not critics.

Is it okay for a critic to try to correct ones interpretation of the art piece is dead wrong? Like a painting of a butterfly, if a person thinks that butterfly represents eternal torment from Hell, would a critic be allowed to say that the persons belief is wrong?