From a purely personal point of view, I find it very difficult to emote about poems that seem to be
doing their best to keep the reader out. There was a trend, not so long ago, especially in America,
to wrap poetry in the unfathomable. If it was impenetrable, seemingly academic with a bohemian sway
it was generally applauded.
Now don't get me wrong, because I love metaphor (even complex ones), simile and a host of rhetorical devices,
which includes layering (my favourite) but without accessibility it all falls flat, unless you're writing for a specific audience.
EG Lawyers at a law convention might pen an "in house" poem.
That's the beauty of critique. If a poem is missing the mark entirely, due to a lack of understanding, it's good to know
where the difficulties lie. Similarly, it's good to know what's working.
"Good poetry" can be both objective and subjective at the same time. We can examine craft and the finer nuances of poetic intent
till the cows come home, but if the content is uninteresting we might not, may never label it as "good". That said, one man's poison etc.
Just ask people if they can name their favourite poem. Most of them will differ or will quote a much loved poem from their
school days (nowt wrong with that). Then ask them why it's their favourite. Sometimes it's difficult to say exactly why.
So, without writing an essay, there's my two penneth.
Long time a child and still a child