In the "Polemical Introduction", Frye faces the fact that a critique is a second-hand form of art. Some artists think of critics as dry and impotent people who attack those who are generally creative. A critic's job is to analyze a work and give his thoughts. The idea of feedback has had a huge climb in the working environment, what is wrong with giving feedback on a piece of art? This is especially pertinent when the piece of art is only for the elite club who does understand the work. Half of art is creating it, the other half is how it is received.
The question of the critique being a mainstream interpretation of art is mirrored by the artist/marketer disconnect. Artists hired by corporations to produce a logo are focused on aesthetic appeal and having deeper meaning behind their hard work. Marketers market to the everyman. A professor of mine once said that more than fifty percent of the population will not understand a single manifest of marketing (billboard, commercial, print ad, etc). It is the marketer's job to take the work of art and manipulate it until it is understood and serves a function. People will eat faster when surrounded by red. The color also makes people feel hungry. Fast food chains have understood this concept and incorporated it into their logos. Things that appeal to the consumer are neither complex nor profound. Artists strive to be both.
Artists are worried about the creative process and the end output having a desired meaning. Critiques are to keep the artist in check. They do not speak for everyone, but they do offer personal feedback on a level that the average person would either not understand or not care to understand. Feedback helps people in the workplace know if they are "on track". Art that appeals to the intelligent elite should receive what the intelligent elite thinks. It is not a question of restraining the artist's creativity, it is a helpful tool to see if the point of the peice has gotten across to the niche the artist was trying to appeal to.