It can and it should.
Let us start with a bit of history. Have you ever heard of "The oldest System-Programme of German Idealism"? Written by Hegel's hand and probably a product of the three friends Hegel, Schelling, and Hölderlin in 1796, it includes the following lines (arguably they best describe Hölderlin's take, who "changed" to poetry later, e.g. Hyperion):
Finally the idea which unites all, the idea of beauty, the word taken in the higher platonic sense. I am convinced that the highest act of reason, which, in that it comprises all ideas, is an aesthetic act, and that truth and goodness are united like sisters only in beauty — The philosopher must possess just as much aesthetic power as the poet. The people without aesthetic sense are our philosophers of the letter. The philosophy of the spirit is an aesthetic philosophy. One cannot be clever in anything, one cannot even reason cleverly in history— without aesthetic sense. It should now be revealed here what those people who do not understand ideas are actually lacking — and candidly enough admit that everything is obscure to them as soon as one goes beyond charts and indices.
Poetry thereby obtains a higher dignity; it becomes again in the end what it was in the beginning — teacher of (history) the human race because there is no longer any philosophy, any history; poetic art alone will outlive all the rest of the sciences and arts. (emphasis mine)
"Poetry" here is not about poets only, it includes things like Homer's tragedies, i.e. can perfectly well cover what we call "prose" these days.
Now, there were some philosophers deeply impressed by ancient Greek poets. Not only the three just mentioned, but also Nietzsche and Heidegger. While Heidegger ended up in idiosyncratic language, Nietzsche wrote in aphorisms, which is one reason why he is still quite well known and commonly read outside of academic philosophy even if his philosophical coherence lacks at times.
In early classical pragmatism, the complex, overly theoretical and inaccessible writings (and personality) of Peirce resulted in him being financially supported by the much more accessible (and friendly) William James so that he does not have to starve.
Coming to contemporary examples, there is an increasing number of philosophers who feel the need of giving philosophy a more tangible garment. To take just two recent successful examples: Jostein Gaarder and Peter Bieri (a former philosophy professor).
Gaarder's Sophie's World sold millions of times. Intended as a child's (well, probably teen's) book, many adults found interest in this kind of introduction into philosophy. Even if there were many academic criticisms of the inaccuracies regarding the descriptions of the numerous authors treated, it still provides a solid start for critical philosophical thinking.
Bieri's A night train to Lisbon (published under the pseudonym Pascal Mercier) also became an international best-seller and was motivated by the thought that the rigid academic structures confine philosophy inadequately (I personally attended a talk of his with this very topic).
Both examples have the dialogical structure in common with Plato, who obviously thought the dialogue to be the best format for philosophy.
Thus, there is a case to be made (which has been made by prolific philosophers) that philosophy should - if it was to retain any practical impact - take more accessible forms and rid itself from the academic writing style, may it be per dialogical prose, aphorisms, or poetry.
The examples mentioned (esp. Peirce/James, Gaarder, Bieri) are the exception to the rule. Most of the times, rigid academic writing is simply a matter of material reproduction: Schopenhauer is quite a good read, but Hegel was the successful one of the two in Berlin, Nietzsche would have died in poverty without support from others, Hölderlin did. And Bieri had enough academic reputation to go back into academia if he had not found the success he did.
Writing accessible philosophy depends on a wager: Will there be a publisher that promotes it well enough? Will there be enough readers interested? How exactly to mediate between accessibility and accurateness? As soon as you have a permanent tenure position at a university, you are probably safe regarding material needs. At the same time, you are probably too deep into academic language and dictus to take the steps back needed.
Thus, the commercialisation of universities in general and the humanities departments in particular indeed results in philosophers increasingly becoming subdued by uniformist material reproduction. Not having a secured financial situation as a researcher for decades with any experiment having the potential to cost you any opportunity for furthering an academic career, you think twice (and thrice) before breaking with academic habits of writing.
In other words: While the universities used to be a place of free philosophy and research, we now face more and more "philosophers of the letter" trying to fit standards so that they become eligible for scholarships, fellowships, tenure, and other research funding. Humanities suffer under a lack of financial support more than more tangible sciences that can raise fundings of companies interested in their research. Geist is subdued by matter.
((According to my experience, the Geist is most tangible in philosophical seminars, conferences, and discussions in bars and restaurants ensuing after the institutionalised events. This is where philosophy proper becomes tangible, accessible. Things you cannot frame in necessarily reductional language))