when meaning doesn't matter...

I've received my most recent issue of Poetry. I have noticed in the past 10 or so issues that I only really care for about 20% of the poetry in each issue (sometimes less). My main complaint is that it seems fairly conservative and traditional, a.k.a. old. The brief introduction to the most recent issue confirms my suspicions. Here is the beginning of the introduction:

"Here at Poetry we generally agree with T.S. Eliot’s notion that 'poetry can communicate before it is understood.' In fact, we might go even further and say that to enjoy a poem in this sense—to respond bodily to its formal movement and sounds, the shape it cuts in the mind’s ear—is to understand it in some primary way. There are even poems that exist wholly on this plane, poems that seem not so much hostile to meaning as beautifully immune to it. ..."

It's clear that I am into concept, but I do enjoy some of the ineffable characteristics of some poetry and art. It just erks me when I hear someone only toting those qualities, especially while leaning on notions of 'beauty' - because who can deny that, right? It's like High Modernism or Abstract Expressionism, and the Avant Guard in here. I think this will not renew my subscription this year. Thank you Poetry magazine, you've given me a few things to think about, but I think I need to move on.

Link to may favorite issue - the Conceptual/Flarf issue.