To me, first-world art is much more recognizable than last-world art because it either shows signs of experimentation or looks unpolished. Last-world art, however, may still look unpolished for stylistic reasons, so it’s harder to identify. On top of this, even polished last-world art may be innovative in some particular aspect, while most of it still follows old tropes. In fact, even in the most mainstream, over-used, uncreative work–let’s say The Fast and The Furious 8, there were many hard working people involved that it’s unlikely the film didn’t add something new to its genre or discover a new way to do things.

The existence of work that exists in both categories complicates this further. In order to fit into both categories, the work must invent something, but also execute it so well that no one can perfect it any further. However, who’s to say that no one will ever do it better? This isn’t a problem with the Beethoven example because he’s so far in the past that people feel comfortable saying the Genre cannot be improved further. However, in most cases, suggesting something is last-world art is to attempt to predict the future. Finally, where do we draw the line between innovations that perfect a genre, and innovations that create genres? Especially since genres often evolve into new ones, we can never really identify last-world art, but we can still point out specific innovations and avant-garde content.