All art is subjective. Some art is more subjective than others. The standards by which poetry is judged by insiders is so radically different than the standards by which poetry is judged by outsiders that it's not even funny.
You don't have to like Bierstadt to recognize he was skillful. You also don't have to know anything about art. But compare and contrast: one has a wikipedia article, one was on SNL:
I have eaten the plums that were in the icebox and which you were probably saving for breakfast. Forgive me, they were delicious - so sweet and so cold.
It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man.
Here's the problem:
If you want to write something and "break the rules" of conventional writing, call it a poem and no one will say shit.
But then when you compare the shit you wrote to some of the shit that poets think is the shit, you're left wondering what the fuck the fuss is all about.
I can vomit up limericks in realtime. That doesn't make me a poet. Why? Because limericks aren't poetry.
Except neither was haiku.
Poetry, more than any other art, is the domain of 'fuck you, because we said so.'