I've been thinking about this a lot. I think the problem is that modern/contemporary art has divorced "good" from "obviously good."
A lot of classic poetry is both "good" AND "obviously good." Take "Do Not Go Gentle into That Good Night" by Dylan Thomas, or "Ozymandias" by Percy Bysshe Shelley. Both are celebrated by the literary elite, but even the common man can appreciate their craftsmanship.
On the other hand, consider Rothko: maybe his work is "good," but it's certainly not "obviously good." Many laypeople are completely baffled by it. "What's so great about THAT? I could have painted that!"
(And for "obviously good" but not "good," perhaps Thomas Kinkade, Bob Ross, or Marcello Barenghi.)
And this Carson poem is the most extreme case. She was awarded the Nobel--maximally good--and yet it reads like complete hokum--maximally not obvious. Even the least sophisticated person could concede that at least Rothko uses pleasing colors, but with this it feels like there's nothing. We're just taking the literati at their word: "trust us bro, this is fire."
Saw a guy who looked like me holding hands with a girl today. I was more handsome though. The absurdity of this injustice immediately filled me with rage. However, closer look at the female revealed she was actually fat, a satisfying fact which alleviated my anger somewhat.