Does a deep knowledge of art history enable you to critique art more adequately?

I do not believe that in order to have a deep understanding of art you have to know the history of it. I think if you know to much about the history of something then you set up expectations, ones that if not met could make your emotional response to the art piece less meaningful than if you would have see it without the prior knowledge. For example when a trained dancer of 12 years goes to see a performance at the Boston Opera House. Let say the performance is the Nutcracker,one of the biggest shows of the whole year. This specific dancer has already, through training and the knowledge they have of dance, set up expectations about what the performance overall should be like. They have set standards that the performance must reach in order to be considered a "good" work of performance art.This prior knowledge inhibits the viewer form experiencing what the performance truly has to offer the audience, therefore they may have somewhat of a skewed view on what it truly is. Although this is true,  I do believe that in order to critique something then you should have some prior knowledge on the subject.