For some reason (perhaps because I am neurotic), I've been meditating on a conversation I had about five years ago with an older gentleman concerning poetry. The conversation went something like this:
Gentleman: I looked at that poetry site of yours.
Me: Oh, yeah?
Gentleman: I didn't get it.
Me: Oh. Um, okay.
Gentleman: What makes a poem, anyway? Shouldn't they rhyme?
Me: Um [flustered], well, you see...
What followed was my embarrassing attempt to define poetry, stuff about line breaks and rhythm, about how a poem is like a photograph or painting, how it should paint a picture or evoke an emotion, how grammar is not so important, how rhyming poems suck. What I should have said is:
Me: There's nothing to get. It either resonates with you or doesn't. Maybe you should read some other types of poems before writing poetry off forever. Or not. Whatever feels right to you.
This hole "pin a poem down like a wiggling pig" thing frustrates me. If you've studied poetry, you know about styles and forms and techniques. You can recognize good writing from bad. But you should also know that in the end, what matters most is your reaction and tastes. Personally, I loathe experimental poetry, can't stand weird indentations that play with the visual spacing on the page, dislike anything seeking shock value or vulgarity, am not so cool with rhyme. These are my preferences. If I only read the stuff I don't like, I wouldn't get poetry either. Nobody likes every novel they read.
So, broaden your poetry horizons. Stop putting pressure on yourself to analyze a poem or stuff it into some academic box. You'll find there's a lot of stuff to like.