I think you have “critique” confused with “criticism.” It is a confusion which is epidemic on poetry boards. Even if you are right, and at a certain level of competence and sophistication, critiquing is no longer useful, criticism always is. Criticism explicates a poem, unfolds it, shows how it works and what it does, places it historically, places it in an author’s oeuvre. When we think of criticism, we are thinking of Eliot and Johnson and Jarrell and Brooks; they weren’t trying to help a writer improve himself. Theirs was a dialogue between the critic and the audience, not between the critic and the poet.
Critiquing is useful, but only at a rudimentary level. Our goal as poets is to move past critiquers to the critics; our goal as critics is to find poems worth, not critiquing, but criticizing.
Here’s an old discussion on the difference between critiquing and reviewing.
Here are the not-very-illuminating relevant bits from Merriam-Webster, for what they’re worth:
2: the art of evaluating or analyzing works of art or literature; also : writings expressing such evaluation or analysis
: an act of criticizing; especially : a critical estimate or discussion
: to examine critically : review
6 a: a critical evaluation (as of a book or play)