I really don't like the way he privileges "art poetry" over other kinds of poetry. Rupi Kaur has every bit as much a claim to being a poet as Wallace Stevens does. (And Stevens in particular, of all the poets...)
And that drives me nuts, because a lot more people might like "art poetry" if he'd stop making people feel bad about not liking it.
While I'm not a voracious reader of poetry, I've got even less time for "John Ashbery, by general consensus the greatest American poet of the late-twentieth century", of whom I've never heard. And that sample is not making me rush out to read it.
It's a model of the "Purple prose with line breaks" form of modern poetry. It's not just that it doesn't have rhyme or meter, but that the line breaks don't add any structure at all except to make it look like poetry on the page. And of all the subjects to write about, "It's hard to write poetry" is the reason nobody wants to read your poems.
Here's how you get poetry: you read the poems you like. You listen to the poets you like to listen to, whether that's slam poets or rappers or singers or commercial jingles. When those start to seem repetitive or simplistic, you go read something else, something that is interesting to compare and contrast with the stuff you already like.
Exactly the same goes for painting, and wine, and everything else that rich people used to like and therefore must be important. Now we can all have it, and if you want to share your interests in it, stop yucking their yum.