Conversation so far:
What is Critique?
He suggests that critique, as currently practiced, is bordering on irrelevancy.
DId this correlate with his views on modernism?
These inconsistencies and double standards go largely unrecognized in social critique because "there is never any crossover between the two lists of objects in the fact position.
Was anyone critical of Bruno's ideas on this?
CANNOTANSWER.
Are there any other interesting aspects about this article?
The conclusion of the article is to argue for a positive framing of critique, to help understand how matters of concern can be supported rather than undermined.
Does he go on to suggest how to support matters of concern?
"The critic is not the one who lifts the rugs from under the feet of the naive believers, but the one who offers the participants arenas in which to gather.
How does the think critique is "bordering on irrelevancy"?
The critic is not the one who alternates haphazardly between antifetishism and positivism like the drunk iconoclast drawn by Goya.

Question: What does he believe the critic is?
Self-contained rewrite: What does Bruno Latour believe the critic is?