I can't answer that question. Sorry.

But I can say this: The popular perception of what it is, and the work that is produced under said rubric and published in poetry journals of both the avant-garde and conservative varieties ... these things are entirely, radically, irredeemably different.

If you've got a moment, pop open a new tab (you do use Mozilla, right?) and search dA for "visual poetry". I'll give you a moment.

Found it? Okay, leaving it on the popular tab for a moment, you'll note that, by and large, the pieces tagged "visual poetry," are this: a poem superimposed on a photograph (possibly a drawing, painting, etc.)

(Personal segue: With no offense to the creators intended ... speaking wholly of personal opinion and acknowledging that many will disagree with me and think that the work I will present to you as being "real" visual poetry is awful ... I hate this stuff. It is boring, almost Victorian in its conventionality, in its easy assumption of the link, the intrareferentiality, between the image and the tacked-on poem. It's impossible for me to find any individual piece of this sort interesting because each and every one relies upon that relation to "make meaning" -- I've yet to see one, at least here, that troubles or deepens that relation.)

In contrast, the work created with the intention of being "visual poetry," and published under that conception, can be seen here: [link]

Not everything here is what one would call visual poetry -- indeed, there's lots of what we call lexical or verbal poetry too. But The Otoliths is one of the great homes of contemporary visual poetry. Check it out.

(Note that this is just a recent sample -- the publishing history of visual poetry is wide and deep)