This issue includes a Glyn Pursglove's essay, "An Introduction to Concrete Poetry." He states "The phrase 'Concrete Poetry' is bandied about a great deal in a way which seems to suggest that all those to whom it is applied are part of a conscious, united movement, and that they are artists whose work is dictated by a set of common and explicit principles. As anyone with any understanding of artistic 'movements' will readily imagine, this is a superficial and misleading idea. Certainly there have been plenty of explicit statements by some of the poets involved but these have, naturally, attracted as many opponents as supporters. One of the most important of such statements was 'POSITION 1 of International (Movement) for Spatial Poetries" organised by, among others, Pierre Gamier. This was not quite a manifesto, in the sense of a document proclaiming plans for the future, but rather a formalisation of a situation. Gamier was fully conscious of the difficulties, and his closing words were that - "These poetries can never be defined completely since they must constantly develop..." Although Garnier's formalisation was both thorough and flexible it did not please everyone. Henri Chopin, for example, refused to sign, and in a lengthy letter he made clear his own intense dislike of 'movements' as such - "....my whole creativity (is) constantly on the move. Then the word POSITION only refers to where we are, so, a priori, the movement we're supposed to belong to doesn't exist. In fact, how can I ever be a 'member' of a 'movement'? I can only be with a movement. I am movement -- Source of annotation: Marvin or Ruth Sackner.