I think we’re both approaching this in different ways. You seem to be talking about art as merely being a reaction to whatever else exists, e.g. context. This suggests that art should engage on a contextual level and as opposed to creating art purely for oneself one should try and create art as a reaction against what has gone before e.g. “I think Internet Poetry makes sense if you think of it as a reaction to the poetry that came before it.”
The issue I have is that this then becomes meta-ironic. David Foster Wallace has this to say on the subject of meta-irony, “categories we divide into superior/arty and inferior/vulgar are in fact so interdependent as to be coextensive”. The whole idea of high/low art is one that has been pretty much abolished by post-modernism (Duchamp being maybe the most obvious example). Art that engages on this level is indulging only in anchoring as opposed to sublimation. For me art should be pointless because everything else is.