Question 1 on Weistz

If there had never been any theories about art or very few, would art have been as advanced as it has been without the criticism of essayists and critics whose writings we have read?

Most definitely art would not have advanced under criticism and judgement, much like science or any other discipline does. Although critics and criticism can be destructive and sometimes despicable, it is a necessity for art's continued existence and advancement. But also, I think, the artist's perseverance under criticism and insults is very important to this. Writers, artists, filmmakers, and musicians have been accused of doing their art badly or in a wrong way. But many years later, that art is viewed as beautiful and commendable. Artists have carried on doing their art in spite of pretentious critics, most notably Plato who came before many well-known artists. In Plato's shadow,  so many artists like Shakespeare, van Gogh, Akira Kurosawa, Ingmar Bergman, Wagner, and many more have done their art and created masterpieces avoiding these words of critics and skeptics.

On the other hand, I think art would be changed indefinitely if critics and skeptics were more radical, like physically attacking writers or artists. Think of Stephen King almost getting assassinated because of his writing. It is a scary thought, but I am of the sure opinion that dedicated artists would keep on going with their art. Taking Fyodor Dostoyevsky into account, he was almost executed but still continued with his writing and his art. I think resilience to these critics and their absurdly rational notions is a very admirable quality.