Naimark’s essay resonated with me in that I feel the ideology of first word and last word art is accurate, especially today; in critiquing and reviewing artworks, there is a natural instinct on the audience’s part to make comparisons to older and similar pieces. Hence, when something is created that is arguably novel for its kind, there is initial shock and acknowledgement of the difference in craft, and this experience of coming across something new often overwhelms any evaluation of objective, technical strengths and weaknesses. This however is an inevitable and positive contribution to the unending influx of artists as new ideas, media, and tools can be discovered and utilized as time progresses. First word art sets a precedence for future generations, spurring new varieties of works and subsequently affecting involved cultures; generally speaking, creativity is often perceived as a positive asset to an individual, and so the first word arts encourage and give vitality to more of such creativity. This in turn leads to more development of the last word arts, and eventually, other first word arts, all of which together dynamically contribute to the building blocks of an ever-changing, artistic society; both types should be recognized as important. I personally find myself along the spectrum of last word art, as a lot of my aspirations stem from already established genres, tools, and media. However, I thoroughly advocate against the downgrade of last word art as unoriginal and inferior; there is still beauty, curiosity, skill, and fun in creating works that are inspired from others’, and oftentimes there is the unrealistic expectation of art to be completely original, unprecedented, and revolutionary to be considered worthy, or good. This unfair judgment is one that I believe should be reconsidered.