I have read an article about Monroe Beardsley and his criticism of Kilmer's famous opening lines of one of his poems: "I think that I shall never see / A poem lovely as a tree."

Now I'll have you guess what Beardsley thought of this. Yeah, he didn't like it so much. He thought it too simplistic as it placed nature over art (a very Romantic thing to do). He of course valued art more than nature. Kilmer's poem epitomizes the outpouring of emotion that the Romantics are known for, so I can imagine how Beardsley would criticize him. I think he would disdain him for putting nature above art.

I think Wimsatt and Beardsley and other formalists kind of echo the decadence with Oscar Wilde and his art for art's sake. All they seem concerned about is the poem itself and nothing outside of it kind of like Wilde and his obession with beauty. For Wilde, it's only about the beauty of things. And I wonder if for Wimsatt and Beardsley it is all about the beauty of the poem or at least the poem as it is (whatever that means)? Maybe that's not exactly the right language, but I am still trying to figure out what they would say makes a poem.