I am fascinated by Naimark’s argument because the distinction between “first word art” and “last word art” is a concept that is often acknowledged yet rarely put into words. I don’t believe one form of art is “truer” than the other, though works that I would classify as “first word” more often than not have a greater interest-value. It also seems like media and concept hold important roles when attempting to distinguish the “first word” form the “last word.” “First word art” holds true if it is unique, even if constructed using established materials and techniques. On the other hand, exploring new media can be “first word” by nature, regardless of the conceptual standing of the artwork. Media will continue to be developed and evolve and the processes and ideas driving an artwork, research project, or experiment are not dependent on how they are created. With that said, important and meaningful artworks often present or employ something new, even when greatly supported by “last word” processes, concepts, and ideas.