Overly reactive audience is a good word to explain. Indeed the
audience have become over reactive these days.
This mass entertainment we have today, these forms , are kinds of different communities. People get interested in being a part of these communities and they make them as separate societies . People,by getting involved in these kind of societies ,miss their chance to live in the original society. They partly live in the original society, partly live in various other societies and in the end, they don't really have a complete life. Entertainment, before, was a part of the society. Now, when a society is created just for entertainment, people tend to be over reactive to anything they come to face in it.
This kind of system functioning today is a real harm to human nature.

If you don't believe there are standards, you probably need a large dose of Onomatopoeia. — Bitter Crank

I certainly believe their existence. I am just disagreeing with that .

I'm happy that you could post such a debatable opinion. That's great response from you.
There ARE orthodox procedures for a poem . But all these procedures that you bring up are just procedures. They can't be standards.
In my opinion, there are no standards for poetry.
These procedures are founded by great artists. But poetry did not origin from these great artists. They loved poetry. They used their own system of writing poetry. They introduced that to the world and people adopted it. If poetry was bounded by such procedures and rules, then poetry should be owned by those artists who found them. Poetry cannot belong to anyone . So , in my humble opinion, poetry is not bounded by anything.

Creativity is mostly the result of striving to achieve beauty, and is mostly hard work. — Bitter Crank

And creativity, I think, is not a result of anything. It's a process. The process of thoughts that help you hold your present.

. Are you denying that such a thing exists? — emancipate

I don't deny it but I disagree with it . Measuring poetry , for me is not the right thing.

I'm sorry that I didn't brief about it .
The shaping I meant is giving a direction or guiding the creativity

Iambic pentameter? — emancipate

Iambic pentameter is a type of English poetry. It isn't a measurement. Even if there exists any measurement, I would firmly disagree with that. One can't measure one's art form and creativity.

Grammar providing a boundary is not much acceptable but however you said grammar provides a shape to creativity which is quite a good one.

Grammar nowadays is indeed a bit malleable. But I don't think, with that fact, we can come to a conclusion that grammar is inconsistent. There are several add-ons in all ways.

But there are also poets who show their creativity with their knowledge of grammar. — Tarun

What I said before may also be one of the causes for such malleability, if you concentrate on that point.

I agree with that reading idea. After all, Learning is the best way to answer.
And the deceptive simplicity you said is completely new to me. Thanks for sharing.

That's great you thought that way. I agree with your thought. But there are also poets who show their creativity with their knowledge of grammar. Here, Grammar is blended with creativity. With such a point of view, the poet is dependent on grammar for his creativity in it. I am a bit confused about what's more essential over what in this place.

Lol, work is important for sure.
Even my choice is creativity over grammar. Creativity sets the basic talent for an artist. Grammar is more knowledge with that.
Thanks for your reply.

I am aware that both creativity and grammar when merged creates great poems. But , Which is more essential? — Tarun

That's what I said before. Both are essential. No doubt about that. But if you have to explain, what comes first?
Thanks for your reply.

In order to ask or answer whether or not something exists, one must first know what that something is.
How do you expect anyone to answer such a poorly framed question? — DingoJones

First of all, this is a question and a question's purpose is an answer. He/She didn't write a book with mistakes to be pointed down. Criticism is welcomed when it comes with an answer.
I see his question has a mistake. But that doesn't make you a reason to deny it's answer. Hope you understand.

Now, for that question, I could say spirit is existent in everyone. I could say so firmly because all of us are bound by spirits. This is not much than a name. In science, we call it energy. In spirituality we call it a spirit.

I'll just announce this thing to the world .
I'll kill those billion lives who were likely the first to defend themselves in anyway possible.
I'll lead the human race with those who were ready to die instead of the others so that humanity stays with humans.
P. S. I know this is not practical. I choose this kind of answer in the case where the question too is not practical. Any thing similar to this purpose can also be chosen

That's fair enough to post such a question.
Above all the research, God is a belief. Nothing could do much about it's existence. And in nothing is everything.
I can remember you of the existence of law of attraction. According to the law, if one believes in something or if one thinks about a certain thing again and again and again , then there is a strong possibility of such thought coming into existence. So, what if I say God does exist as billions of people thought about God for all these centuries?
And to my belief, I can say God is just man -sculptured form of nature.

I think, beauty is in everything. And at the same time, it is in nothing. Beauty does not have a particular nature but is merged with nature . Just like God