I think it's interesting that Naimark sees such a distinction between these types of art. Naimark claims that half the art world sees "first word" art as true art and the other half sees"last word" as true art. So, if we take that to be the case, then good art only comes around at the start or end of an artistic era. This seems silly, especially considering our classifications of the artistic periods are approximations, and there are many examples of outstanding artists working uncharacteristically differently for their time period. How can it be that we compare Giotto to Raphael and make a value judgement about their works simply based off of the technologies and knowledge that each artist had in his time?
We can only examine each artist and their work within the context of their lifetimes, and from there decide if it is good or not. Otherwise, we end up making choices solely based off of variables outside of the artists' control. Would it make sense to make the claim that since computers and computer art has advanced to a vastly more complex state, Vera Molnár's works are bad? Or conversely that her works are the best representation of computer art because they were the first? These seem like difficult propositions to back up.
Technological innovation, culture, and the art that follows is a long lineage that builds on the past. Certainly, Beethoven took what Haydn built and added his own take to it; Beethoven moved Haydn's creation beyond its original state. Is it better or worse for that? Neither. It's something different.