Will give brainliest and 40 something points translate this to normal words! in a peculiar sense he will be aware also that [the poet] must inevitably be judged by the standards of the past. i say judged, not amputated, by them; not judged to be as good as, or worse or better than, the dead; and certainly not judged by the canons of dead critics. it is a judgment, a comparison, in which two things are measured by each other. to conform merely would be for the new work not really to conform at all; it would not be new, and would therefore not be a work of art. and we do not quite say that the new is more valuable because it fits in; but its fitting in is a test of its value–a test, it is true, which can only be slowly and cautiously applied, for we are none of us infallible judges of conformity. we say: it appears to conform, and is perhaps individual, or it appears individual, and may conform; but we are hardly likely to find that it is one and not the other.

Basically its saying  photography has become a bit too focused on the past - even if it’s the immediate past. Just take all that talk about, let’s say, how colour photography became an accepted part of art photography (you could also pick the New Topographics or whatever else). And then re-read the quotes…

or saying  Fitting in is a necessary, but not sufficient criterion. 
Being new is not sufficient. 
Popularity right now is not enough. 
Someone liking the poem now is not enough. 

Does a poem conform to the new times? 
Is a poem individual and different? 
These are coexisting requirements for a poem to be valuable. 

>is a work of art that conforms completely really a work of art? 

"Conforming", in the sense of forming the leadership for a new age. 
Yes, conforming is a necessary, but not sufficient requirement for a poem: 
"its fitting in is a test of its value–a test," 

>should contemporary works of art be judged as “better” or “worse” than past ones? 

There is no way that new poems be as bad as old poems, or their canons. 
"certainly not judged by the canons of dead critics."

In a unique sense, he will be aware that it is necessary for the poet to be judged at some point by the laws of the past. I say judged, not removed by them; not judged to be any worse or better than the dead;and not judged by the laws of dead critics. It is a judgement, a comparison, in which two things are compared/measured to each other. To adjust for the new work would not be adjusting at all; it would not be new, and because of that... would not be a work of art. We don't really think the new is more valuable because it fits in/is more popular; but it's popularity is a test of how valuable it is, though this test must be taken slowly, for none of us are flawless judged of change and adjustment. We think: it appears to adapt, and is perhaps on its own, or appears to be on its own, and may adapt; but it is likely that it is at least a bit of both.

Hope this helped! Please tell me if you need any definitions. ^^

Jdjdhdvdhdhsjsjsjsshjssj