I admire artists who overcome what must be a natural antipathy to critics and humbly take their views under consideration.
That's cool. And I remember reading Pierre Boulez, who said no artist should be concerned by any other assessment of his work beyond his own. Of course, one takes that with a grain of salt (and PB is very free with his demolition of others' works), but it definitely defines a position one ought to be able to occupy from time to time, at least temporarily. And humility is no more a prerequisite for an artist than arrogance. There are examples of great artists who or either and, in fact, some people simply prefer a humbler personality, but there are others who really go for the arrogant types, and neither of these qualities determines the artistic excellence of the artist, at least not nearly always or one more than the other. 'Great artist' is morally neutral, and Picasso was not humble. Which doesn't mean I think 'great artist' is the ultimate thing to be, either. There are many worthy modes of being. But I always keep Boulez's over-the-top pronouncement in mind: If you don't care only about your own opinion at least some of the time, you won't ever find your own particular voice. Which also doesn't mean you shouldn't go to 'masters', and that is nicely covered by that slightly pop psychologist Ellen Langer, in her 'Mindful Learning' series.
What difference, really, than the constant criticism we all endure in real life? At some point, we may decide that some of it is totally unjustified, and we are all the more strengthened by the fact that we had to surmount the crap and go ahead with what our own vision is. Over Xmas I had precisely this, some absolutely scathing criticism that infuriated me, but actually spurred me on to do a much sharper job at something than I had expected to (I didn't know it would be important.) But I don't appreciate that critic, because I know he did not mean in it in a benevolent way, he meant it to be destructive--and I also consider that it was false. But still, it is possible to use even the meanness of the true destroyers, much less a mildly critical NYTimes critic, and go ahead and do something better than what it would have been before. In this case, it made me burn with rage and do something that I consider good, although I may or may not have done as well without it (this kind of thing is hard to assess.)