Concrete? Poetry?

Concrete Poetry, the term, seems to me to be a fallacy. So many of the examples viewed for this class have nothing in common with both prior styles and other pieces in the Concrete Movement that it seems to me that grouping together these pieces and calling them "Concrete" is simply being done to make an easy classification. An analogy would be: you know what dogs are, and come upon critters that aren't dogs, and no matter what manner of critter they actually are, be they deer or birds or fish, you call them cats, because they are strange to you and you choose to name them easily. What have wooden instruments that resemble books to do with posters that refer to a circus, or eyes stacked upon each other? Nada, (two of them don't even seem to use words!) except they are not in any earlier existing style, so they are grouped together.
Something that gripped me was that in Macinaus' work he says poetry must be taken back from Europeans and made so that it is grasped by all, not just dilettantes, critics, and professionals, but does it in a way that isn't very appealing to laymen- classic do as I say, NOT as I do. It seems that the pieces grouped in the Concrete school are so subjective that not only are they NOT easily grasped, but have so many ways of being interpreted that they would serve more to divide than to unite two or more people. (Maybe unite them in a debate/argument over what the "true" meaning is.)
Phooey on Young-The bookforms are not new, nor are they revolutionary. People use one thing as another all the time. And how is this POETRY!!!! AAAAHHHH!!!
Cockburn and Finlay had some good points. It is true that while Concrete poems aren't meant to be in books, that is where they are most often encountered, and that while many terms that refer to poems deal with the spoken word, most poems are read, and Concrete poems certainly seem to be predominantly visual in style (at least the ones I've seen).
No good reasons are given for experimenting with the shape of texts, just subjective judgments upon those that did. How about this: "Do it if you feel like it, and think you can achieve your aims that way." There, that took me sixteen words.
Like Finaly and Cockburn, I think poets must come to terms with evolving technology, just like early man did when he figured out language, how to make music, to make instruments, to put the two together, to elaborate upon other's tales, to write em' down, in words and or pictures, to use printing presses or typewriters or whatever. Tech changes. Its nothing new. What we can do with computers really isn't even that new (pop-up books, 3D art, kaleidoscopes, anyone?).
What's new about computers is that they make animating and sharing our ideas easier than it has been before, just like an organized mail service, roads, the telegram, and radio did in the past. But we are still primarilly reading words that have been printed.