Theory?

One interesting idea brought up by some of discussions in Thursdays (9/16) class was theory. Things like semiotics or "flarf" (which, I think may be less theory) made me wonder about the role theory should play for a poet. I know, at least for me, that my MA in creative writing was more of an "English" degree in the sense that there was a lot less craft and a lot more "English" (took a theory class [have the Norton on my shelf], Old English, and lit classes more focused on English canon than necessarily poetic canon). I'm familiar with these terms, and if not in my immediate recall memory, a quick glance at a book/existent notes make the ideas "pop" fresh. So the point--if the MFA is a "craft" degree, what sort of premium should there be on "theory" outside of poetics? Should a writer be familiar/well versed in things like semiotics or post-colonial theory, reader response or new historicism, difference and hermeneutics? I think some of these come intuitively, and as tools, how "helpful" are they if someone wants to simply "produce" rather than "critique"?

I know for me I like having this sort of theoretically background as I like entertaining academic discussions in person, and sometimes I find these theories opens up ideas that I can address in poems without having it read as a lecture (I know for sure I have a few poems about sign/signifier/signified). However, if a writer wants to write purely from "life," why does the writer need to know "academically" about the oppressed--wouldn't the writer eventually get close (or nail) these sorts of theory by experience alone?

I guess this is neither an argument for or against theory in a "craft" setting--rather, I find it interesting how a "little" knowledge can go so far.

hmph.

-Glenn