@ddykstal There was a time when the ability to write a competent sonnet was part of what an educated gentleman was supposed to be able to do. The only way to be able to do that, of course, was to learn the craft of sonnet-writing. (There were, of course, also women who could write competent and better-than-competent sonnets, but it was not considered a "necessary component" of their education.)
So, yes, there is a craft that you can learn--what some people would refer to as versification (and I would include the writing of competent free verse and prose poetry in that as well). This, for me at least, is a question separate and apart from the question of why you might choose to write poetry and for whom. Or, to put that another way, from the question of what you have (or think you have to say), whether it is best said in a poem, and to whom you think it is worth saying. There is a difference, for example, between the person who writes poetry primarily for themselves and/or for a small group and the person who has the audacity--because it is, at bottom, an audacious thing--to presume that their work is worth the time, effort, and money other people would have to expend publishing, promoting, and reading it. And that difference has nothing whatsoever to do with the lasting literary value of the work produced by those two kinds of poets. The former might write "poetry for the ages," while the the latter's work might have no lasting value at all. (And none of that takes into consideration the viscissitudes of the market and the machinery by which literary reputations are made, unmade, and, for whatever reason, not made.)
I just finished listening to the latest episide of Commonplace, a worthwhile literary podcast, and the host, Rachel Zucker, was talking about how, when she was getting her MFA, she was told in subtle and not-so-subtle ways that she ought to be trying to write "timeless poetry," when what she wanted was to write "timely poetry," poetry that would be of real use to people right now. I received the same message, though I don't have an MFA, and one of the underlying assumptions is that people who succeed in writing "timeless poetry" were the ones with real, true, native talent and artistic sensibility, whilel the ones who wrote timely (which is also called occasional) poetry tended to be mere versifiers, people who may have mastered craft, but who had no innate vision or talent. For what it's worth, I think it's a bullshit distinction.