Is any critique truly objective?

[ICSoria]

I have heard the question on several critique and self-described, critical analysis poetry forums. In my opinion, the answer is simply, no, although critique in its purest definition is surely meant to be so. However, in most of today’s online poetry forums at least, objectivity itself ends up coming across as overtly subjective. Each critic will have a different perception of a particular write and any problems therein. Sort of like (In my mind at least), the theory of relative light perception, posited by artist, Josef Albers. What is red, yellow or blue to one person, may not necessarily be thus to another. An observer may even perceive colors in muted tones. It depends on how his/her individual brain processes the same information.
I have heard all manner of argument against a seemingly harsh critique: "Just because you don't like this poem, doesn't mean it's a bad poem! It's written from the heart! They're all worthy of respect!" and (One of my favorites), "I have won several online poetry awards: How many have you won?" Such relativistic arguments are ultimately void of substance and attempt to obfuscate one fact: Certain parameters still exist in poetics, even free verse. Each critique however is after all only one person's opinion. How well a poet learns to adhere to the parameters will ultimately govern whether, and how long his/her creative attempts will be remembered.
Just my opinion. I would appreciate your take on it. Feel free to tell me where I am wrong.

Sid