Criticism and valuation are two entirely different things.Are they? Why? Why do I see so little of the latter and so much of the former?
I have no idea what you're looking at, but the great majority of what I see, using film as an example, is "Film Review", which is essentially a person evaluating which aspects of a film they liked and which they didn't, which is to say it is entirely valuation and lacks an analytical, self-reflective perspective on the work that is best achieved by refraining from judging at all. I see so much of people telling people whether something struck them as good or bad without even considering what the role of that "goodness or badness" was. If a piece of art is to challenge the viewer, then there are likely going to be many elements that are not immediately rewarding and pleasurable because there is some deeper complexity that requires reflection and consideration prior to judgment, and that seems to be the opposite of how people approach art these days. The shallow, hedonistic approach reigns: If something is not immediately pleasurable, and something could have been changed to make it more pleasurable, then the work is "flawed", no matter whether there was a function for that piece not being immediately pleasurable and whether there might be a greater structure at work than merely immediate satisfaction.
I rarely read writing about art that has a rating attached to it anymore, as it is irrelevant to the ideas presented. Valuation comes after all of the ideas are understood.