If we are to define Poetry as Aristotle once had, as in a mimesis(imitation) of an object in literal form, and if we apply these guidelines to all forms of art we can draw these conclusion:

1. In order to something to be art it must mean something.

2. Art isn’t about what has happened but what could happen.

3. The interpreter of the art must have some way of identifying the object of which this work of art speaks of.
  

4. The object that it imitates does not have to be a physical object, it can be an idea, a concept, and can be presented through abstract means.

Now one might argue that art should have no rules, and that the artist should be allowed to express his art in any way, shape, or form. However it was these arguments that have destroyed modern poetry, for these supposed artists sling together words with meaningful definitions just for the illusion of meaning. Most art in the modern age is either driven by a desire for material possessions, or on less often occasions truly an imitation of the artist’s soul and emotions.

However this sometimes and rarely varies when considering other forms of art, for photography can follow these guidelines or can just be a photo taken upon the photographer perceiving something. Though in poetry I advocate strongly for the use of these guidelines. Consider the poem by Edgar Allen Poe “The Raven” this is obviously a written imitation of some of Poe’s problems, though the problem being no one really understands what he is trying to say, and for years people have been praising this poem, getting tattoos of it, and reciting it in high schools, this infuriates me, for let it not be said that this is not an amazing work of poetry, but let it be said that these people have no understanding of what it means and to try and perceive it’s meaning without reading his other works or knowing his background and history is simply foolish.