"Allow"?!?
Who would be the arbiter of what "should" be correct?

Language is a "living", emergent characteristic of intellect and creativity. It takes both skill and imagination to divine nuance.

There's a big difference between the intentional, artful or (especially) poetic use of non-traditional grammar and a habitual, unintentional use of non-traditional grammar - out of ignorance or slothful attendance to norms. And there is much in our language which was, at one time, new and improper. English wasn't really even considered a distinct language until it was wrought into form by the Elizabethans, not the least of them one Will Shakespeare.

How would you feel if it were suggested there was only one proper way to paint a tree?

allow?

For that matter, why even allow poetry? Or all that crappy blank verse written by Shakespeare?

I mean, why didn't Picasso just paint what he saw?
All those stupid unrealistic paintings of people with blocky cuboid forms etc ha ha

Freedom of expression, I think they call it.

Because it rhymes. I'm a bit of a grammar nazi but it really helps to look at the past, before the dictionary codified words (sometimes incorrectly) and other 'rules' were invented. The primary point of a language is to convey meaning. This can be done without a fervent adherance to rules.

all I got to say is doo wop wop wop...doo wop wop wop...hehe