Excruciating Diarrhea of the Pen - or - Damn, that was hard to read, both for my eyes, and for my mind.

Aragañaraz, Aragao, and de Campos seem to be, umm, terrible writers. I'm not saying I'm any good, either, but as I tried to grasp the concepts they were elaborating upon, I couldn't help but want, then need, then SCREAM for: an example of this style of writing or struggle that they referred to so often. Duh! After reading Aragao's statement that words and images are, “transfigured by their interaction until they from an ambiguous and enigmatic communication, which rearranges art,” I couldn't help but think, "YOU didn't even need images, beyond the text on my screen, to make your whole article ambiguous, you asshole." (This guy got under my skin. It was like he was trying to be ironic and show that text all by its lonesome can confuse and cause difficulty when one is trying to figure out what is truly being said in a work.)
These guys believe that writers should experimentt with art to either use a "new" medium to create a "new" art (Aragao, as if the TV isn't just a play whose stage is our living room, or thge internet isn't just a quicker form of pen-pals or bulletin boards), or/and to reach people on an objective level and act as a voice of revolution (Argañaraz) or as a bastion against collectivism and subservience (de Campos).
They seem to be in agreement with Maso that the arts need to stir up the mind and cause action, which is okey-dokey, and agree that new forms that cast off the rules imposed by insitutionalized language and presentation are valuable.
*When de Campos writes communication may not be language's first function (!?), I almost quit right there, but I would have missed a gem that came soon after. "Poetic statements are no more actual statements than peaches in a still life are actual dessert." Brilliant, because you can't really feel a breeze that somebody is describing in a text you are reading, you only imagine it, and imagine it in a way unique to yourself, no matter how concrete and universal the poet has attempted to be. Later on I saw some serious hypocrisy/ failed logic in her article, though. She maintains that poetry is not utilitarian, but later says that poets are dikes against the degeneration of language. And while she writes that Concrete Poets stray outside the norms to demonstrate and defeat the limits and strictures imposed upon them by institutionalized language (and, therefore, institutionalized minds), by identifying their modus aparandi and attributing to it a function, name, and purpose, she transforms it into yet just another movement which will be subsumed, and become the norm.