If Weitz believes one cannot define art, who would he stipulate as being an art critic?

Despite the fact that Weitz claims one cannot and should not define art, I would argue that he would say critics do exist, and are actually a positive and progressive element to the art community.  While he refutes the existence of a correct, real, definition of art, Weitz discusses the numerous theories over the years, calling them honorific definitions.

 "In each of the great theories of art, whether correctly understood as honorific definitions or incorrectly accepted as real definitions, what is of the utmost importance are the reasons proffered in the argument for the respective theory, that is, the reasons given for the chosen or preferred criterion of excellence and evaluation...Thus, the role of theory is to define anything but to use the definitional form, almost epigrammatically, to pin-point a crucial recommendation to turn our attention once again to the plastic elements in painting" (Weitz, 415).

Weitz greatly values these theories.  He asserts that these theories and criticisms foster healthy discussion of the qualities and criteria found in "great art."  The trick is to look past the overarching theory of an honorific definition, and to focus on specific points or recommendations of the theories.  These specific use of forms, unique use in mediums, or even a specific flair in the style of an artist's trade are to be singled out in discussion and theorizing, for it is these qualities that one can recognize in a great work of art, or in a great theory of aesthetic value.  This in depth analysis of artistic works and theories are what Weitz would encourage.  There is no doubt that he would greatly value the ability of critics, among other people, to seek out these specifications and to compare and contrast similarities that are found in great theories and great works of art.