"First Word Art" and "Last Word Art" are both terms that I have been exposed to before, and my general stance that I continue to take is that both can be considered as "true art". I strongly disagree with the stance that "first word art" is not considered art, because I do not believe that mastery has to take place in order for a piece to be considered "art". Rather, I believe in that art can take an exploratory nature and serve as a catalyst for other movements and/or works; to me, this sort of effect serves an even greater purpose.
I believe my interests lie more so within the realm of "first word art". Rather than create the "ultimate" perfected piece and/or artwork of a certain sort of style, I much rather enjoy exploring new concepts that may inspire and provoke others. I enjoy seeing the possibility of extension and further exploration that could ensue after my work, rather than my actual final work, at times.
Although we aspire to make things of lasting importance, many times our creations do not age well. Many times, this could be a result of not designing and/or creating for the future without future-design thinking in mind. From a design standpoint, Jamais Cascio's three main critiques for designing for the future can be applied here: 1) Does my scenario and/or product focus only on technological advances and miss the day-to-day of everyday life, 2) Does my scenario assume everything will work and miss the possible failures and unintended uses and 3) Does my scenario only focus on the dominant classes and ignore the broader impacts of society? When considering future works incorporating novel technology, we can often fail to consider our work these lenses, consequently failing in creating things of endurance and longevity.