writing about poetry vs. creating poetry

Having had to write several papers about poetry over my years of schooling
analyzing it,
finding meaning in it
and making sense of it,
I can say that I honestly feel very comfortable reading a complex poem and teaching it to others-
I can make meaning of it's
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e,
analyze all occurrence of alliteration,
(whether is occurs immediately or in time)
find and explain its end rhyme
etc.
Some would say that this should make me a good poet-
that I should be able to create beautiful works because I can reproduce the elements of
good
poetry
(tears rolling down the lace petals of a lily in the morning light).
But I disagree!
Imitation and study do not make good poetry!
If one examines the work of Elliot-
The Wasteland
words
thrown
about
with
seemingly
no
regard.
Does he rhyme?
And where is the assonance?
But he makes a wonderful point,
a paints a vivid picture.
What, then, makes good poetry "good"?
I believe that in matters such a this
that the easiest answer is:
poetry is meant to inspire
like Yeats' "widening gyre"
or Blake's Tyger.
I contend that education, or rather,
knowledge,
is very important when arranging words on paper in the hope of creating a poem,
otherwise what the reader is left with are only words,
arranged much like flowers in a vase-
but eventually that beauty fades
and the admirer is left with nothing of substance.
Thus a poet should be always aware of those that came before him,
soak up and bleed their thoughts-
but the difference between creation and imitation is slim-
thus their usage should be carefully planned shots.

But when all is said and written,
make sure that it is from the heart
because either way someone will cut it down
so you should at least have fun creating it!