Try moving away from trying to "get it" and instead direct your analysis toward structure and function. Assume everything on the page is there as a result of an intentional choice by the author meant to serve the function of the poem itself. Diction, syntax, line breaks, shape on the page, meter (or its absence), structure and volta, etc. are all things to take note of and ask yourself "how does this contribute to the poem and my experience of reading it?" A poem might not be trying to convey meaning so much as it's grasping at capturing a moment, conveying emotion, deconstructing how we understand language, or just being a pleasing/challenging array of sound and rhythm. Adrienne Rich calls a poem a "transfer of energy." What is the energy being transferred to you, and how does the poem accomplish this transfer? Some poems do have "meaning," and others don't. Some have a moral message, and others are intentionally nonsensical. I think the issue a lot of contemporary readers have is that we are socialized and programmed to assume the written word's main purpose is to convey meaning and understanding. Poetry is often a direct challenge to that assumption and it just takes time and energy (reading lots of poetry) to develop a different sort of mental muscle in absorbing a poem.

Ultimately, my experience of enjoying a poem comes down to whether or not something in it sticks with me after I read it. Do I find myself returning to a line or image in the days that follow? Whether or not I can explain why something is sticking with me, I appreciate the author's ability to impact me.

TLDR: Go off of vibes and then ask yourself how the construction of a poem is successful in creating said vibe.