To sum up an earlier post about James Elkins' book What Happened to Art Criticism? Asking that question is a bit like fussing over the drapes while a rhinoceros crashes about your living room (or whatever metaphor gets this across). Like it or not, artists keep making art; you can either describe it, using whatever tools and venues are available, until a theory becomes clear, or worry about less important "writerly" concerns, like classifying different types of criticism and asking whether they're up to the job.
If you are an artist, to sit back detached and 'position' your work within some kind of larger cultural trend might just be the death of your work. If you are a participatory art-writer then staying in the moment is important, but illuminating the threads of a larger relevance to a work of art is part of the job. If you are someone who calls yourself a critic, then you'd bloody well better do some abstract evaluation of your practice once in a while.