It is very difficult to write poetics. Particularly because normally they are composed of less than thirty-three lines by sixty pulses, and that is impossible. I am not saying that life cannot be summarized in a haiku, but one thing is poetry which is condensed, and another poetics which is the explanation. Most people solve this by writing beautiful suggestions or interesting anecdotes, or even deliberate riddles in occasions; a very reckless attempt considering that after the poetics comes the poem, and if somebody would decide to compare they may conclude that someone is pulling their leg. Not because the poems are detracting, of course, but simply because purposes are not up to the results received. In conclusion, these one-sheet poetics have ended up being another literary genre, and thus, a convention not following Wittgenstein's advice about that which cannot be explained clearly, should not be mentioned at all. My point of view is that this approach only blurs poetics, instead of making things more transparent, and show there is no compromise.
A work of art is made up of settings and structure. It is impossible to speak about any creation skipping its formal manifestation: everything else is rambling. The relation between what and how is what will determine if the work has accomplished its work or not. The because, for and due to are only secondary constraints when judging a work, although their limits with what and how are sometimes blurred along the steps of the creation process. A poetic is useful for that which is almost the only thing that can be clarified in art, and this is how it was done. Nevertheless, showing how a process takes place is something, while clarifying how the process transcends, i.e., what we come to call poetry, is something completely different. Poetics explains how, nothing else, never the work of art itself.
Because after all, even if when elaborating a work we count with the best materials and know how to use them with the necessary skill, even if we have the largest ambitions and the most brilliant ideas, the results will not necessarily be to the level requested. Neither the ingredients, nor the recipe, guarantees a good stew; the same is true for the difficulties we may be able to overcome, although sometimes we can mistake the means with the final result. We believe that the satisfaction for overcoming barriers is a clear signal of having created a work of art, but we can feel the same joy when creating a good verse or bad verse, as long as it is done with the necessary sincerity and enthusiasm. This is the reason why it is of no use to fill tons of beautiful pages about what is poetry and beauty, tradition or vanguard, depending in the case. Because nothing will ensure you that you will be able to write another single good poem in the rest of your life, and the path covered is equally unimportant, not even having been a Nobel laureate. Even if you have the boldest proposal, the most solid references, and have overcome all difficulties of a risky composition...
I understand poetics for the etymological meaning of the word: the study of a work that is going to be made. Nothing more, nothing less. Thus, the real poetics would consist in the memorandum of a poem project, or book project. In cinematic terms it would be a summary of the argument, the development of the script, and the sequence scale.