The criteria for judging poetry: a negative criterion would be based on the presence of amateurism, obvious flaws, signs that the poet doesn't really know what he or she is doing. The positive view would ask whether the poem offers anything extraordinary, whether it rises above a certain level--not whether it sinks below a threshold of tolerance. A poetry offering a uniform surface of "good writing" might end up being simply dull. We can't object to anything in particular. Even an amateurish touch might be welcome here to break the monotony!

Great poets who write seemingly bad lines (judged from conventional viewpoint), like Spicer. Someone who pointed these out to me, I would say, sure, I already know that this doesn't seem to be good poetry, but you are missing the point.