The older, more classic poets used sentence and grammer to embody and communicate the thought, source, and aim of the poem. Many of the more "au courrant" poets use the "vomitus eruptus" modus of communicating thought. It's free associative writing, and I find it rude, because it imposes that the reader MUST necessarily, first and foremost agree with the poet's premise before being admitted into the "special group" of comprehending the poem. It's akin to "speaking in code" for the "like minded".
The Gang of 88 "articles" are a more modulated, education-speak, form of the latter.
"Vomitus eruptus" is exactly right. However, I strongly suspect that even those who accept the poet's premises and are part of the "special group" would have a difficult time explaining what was being said. Is a work product Art, if it is only understood/appreciated by the artist?