Despite that fact that this poet thinks he's writing crappy poetry, that fact that more people can easily identify with the short, pop poetry means that often, that's what people have the energy to read and understand. And you can make a case that in some ways that makes it better.
I know we're supposed to glorify deep, esoteric poetry that's hard to figure out because such poetry supposedly comes from deep, esoteric people with complex feelings, but the reality is that most of the time, most people's feelings aren't complex, and that's okay. There's virtue in simplicity. If a four word pop poem reminds someone of some fond memory or feeling they once had, and they feel a little bit better about life for a few minutes, hasn't it done it's job?
I wonder where it all went wrong. Most of the 19th century poets I've read have fairly easy to read poems, at least compared to the 20th century ones, which is strange since the 20th century folks supposedly had more similar lives to me and spoke a language that was closer to mine. I think what happened was that academic poetry started valuing differences rather than similarities,. To be good, you now had to show how special and different you were from everyone else, rather than writing poetry that everyone could identify with. As a result everyone without an English degree stopped trying to read poetry.