Taking criticism to refer to close analysis, it borders on ridiculous to say that all art should be evaluated without respect to the real world, since art can reference the real world and therefore is incoherent without reference to the real world.
A more relevant question, then, is, "Is there a context where art criticism is useful without respect to the real world?" The answer to this question seems pretty obvious to me, as well: If the point of criticism is to understand and gain value from art, then if considering it without respect to the real world aids in this pursuit it seems silly to exclude it. I can't think of any reasonable argument for a universal exclusion, anyway.
A third question might be: "If there are two extremely contrasting views of a piece of art, depending on which context you consider it, is one of them preferable to the other?" This question is more complex, but I think the best preference is to think of art criticism as additive, and since neither is coherent stripped of its context then it need not be considered independent of its context. "X means Y in y context, X means Z in z context, but to say B means Y in z context is incoherent." That seems to make sense as a general rule. This is pretty abstract, though, and maybe not all that illustrative.
In general, though, being that criticism is essentially just knowledge and understanding of a subjective work, I don't think that there's any context that should be excluded. One context can certainly be deemed more meaningful or interesting by an individual, and that can differ, but such is subjectivity. Criticism and valuation are two entirely different things.