Poiein: to make. No matter the numerous etymological routes, one arrives at to make. The emphasis is not on the maker. The maker: the poet, though active, is not the action. The making is the thing. The all-important thing: performing a range of possibility.
Poiein: to make: Poïesis:
A deictic site: Place without meaning where meaning is limitless: The poem: The physical poem and the abstraction: making; the concept and abstraction; the poem as fact within the abstraction it brought to bear. One does not precede the other, or outrank another, for there is no inherent hierarchic order to these things. They simply operate as a site of intense relations, and that which transpires is the dynamism of proximal and plastic relation. Simply: the nature of the thing. Nature, certainly or uncertainly, as the result of a production rendered via social habitus, and so its own inevitability is made possible.

The sum of the facts does not constitute the work or determine its esthetics.[1]
The poem is not only polyvalent nor polydirectional; any direction can be followed within the parameters of the poem and far beyond the structure of the poem itself and the polyform trajectories it excites. It may or may not lead somewhere.
What comes into appearance must segregate in order to appear.[2]
Simultaneously, any, and perhaps all, directions may be ignored, as there is no governing regime of indisputable logic, save the active mind and imagination. In this wise, the poem is one of those few entities that simultaneously directs attention while being a focal point of attention all the while.
The lines and images don’t build up to something. Pairing a singular beauty is the density.[3]
A deictic site:

And where’s the center in the poem, that it might provide some working thesis? And so it engages the issues of form from a prismatic standpoint, providing both the limits and the limitlessness of its articulated poetic form so as to afford a reader the failures, or bankruptcies of traditional and contemporary forms, as well as their surfeit. Tethered to a host of contingencies and contextual arrangements, language ‘covers’ rather than ‘discovers’ and ‘closes’ rather than ‘discloses doors to utilitarian interpretations.’[4]
This ‘covering’ and ‘closing’ is a result of the dynamism of relations as well as the byproduct of the poem’s poly-directionality. Whether by accretion of language or silence, the multiform possibilities of utilitarian sense making are surpassed due to a poem’s paradigmatic reflexivity.
“Firm as a fish is,” as he says in one of the Maximus Poems: that the poem should be firm as fish, like a physical event, as actual as that, not metaphorically but substantively it should be an issue of a physical condition—that true.[5]
Paradoxically it’s a regenerative object and system of arranged objects and facts, inasmuch as they appear, grouped together by decision, one activity or another regardless of the poet’s methodology.

A poem and a panoply of direction that serves to coordinate presence itself: It is a form. Necessarily driven and driven by necessity. A form, forming.[6]
This, or, that, would be the moment of the Hegelian idea of it, for it is not the poem that makes it the poem, it is the possibility of it that forms the poem. The idea is the teeth of it. The idea, then, is not a seed of the poem. The poem is complete. The poem is inchoate. The moment of inception is fetish. The moment of completion is fetish. Its exterior does not puncture its interior; each is the manifestation of the other, that and its periphery. The poem is brought to bear as a site of circumstance. That the thing manifests itself.[7] In this wise, the poem is both revealed and reveals in the revelation of the poem itself. Both the condition and the activity occur together exclusively in the form of the sensate work.
A form of forming.

NOTES
Walter De Maria, The Lightning Field: Some Facts, Notes, Data, Information, Statistics, and Statements (1980).
Goethe.
Leslie Scalapino, irises, kali [on Mei-Mei Berssenbrugge], How Phenomena Appear to
Unfold (Brooklyn: Litmus Press 2011) 261.
Robert Smithson, A Museum of Language in the Vicinity of Art, Collected Writings (Berkeley: University of California Press 1996) 78.
Robert Creeley, Towards a New American Poetics: Essays and Interviews (Black
Sparrow 1978).
“The photographs of the Bechers record the transient existence of purely functional
structures, and reveal the degree to which form is determined by the invariant requirements of function.” Carl Andre, A Note on Bernhard and Hilla Becher, Artforum (December 1972) 59-61.
Jean-Luc Nancy, Hegel: The Restlessness of the Negative (Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press 2002).