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.

The argument that a field as large, diverse, and ill-defined as art can be bisected “neatly… in two” by such elementary criteria seems to be an oversimplification, at worst. At best, it is a paradigm in which we can hope to better understand the motivations behind some (not all) works and how they are situated in a broader context. I think the article was quite articulate, but it presented nothing that I had not already contemplated. In fact the mere words “new media” inherently embody much of the article’s claims. The field is an artistic field because the methods and mediums within “new media art” have not yet been explored, which implies that in other fields of art, artists work with mediums that have already been explored.

That being said, Naimark deserves credit, at least, for contradicting himself in a significant way: he says that the two divisions are “not mutually exclusive,” even going so far as to assign a project to find works that fall into both categories. Naimark should have also assigned a project to find works that fall into neither category to exemplify the “in the middle” period that a lot of art movements must have. Of course if there is a beginning of an era and an end of an era, doesn’t that mean that there is a middle?

As a student interested in new media and technical arts, I continuously ask myself “is new media even new?” At times it seems that it is not new at all, which undermines so much of what makes my work compelling. After all, the second person who did something is not nearly as important as the first. Does my work fall into the forgettable middle? Neither pioneering or perfected?

First Word / Last Word is a very elegant way of describing one of the biggest divides in the art community, but it is also comparable to, or directly related, to the schism forming in the latest developing art medium: video games. First Word and Last Word games are more often described as Abstract and Formalist, respectively. Most of video game history is dominated by formalist games, games that adhere to expectations from its related genre, but there has been an increasing amount of abstract games coming to popular attention. Now there is a lot of controversy over how video games should be defined.

A formalist definition of video games would provide clear boundaries for what could be a video game, but such boundaries would restrict creative deviations. On the contrary, a loose abstractionist video game definition could make the title meaningless. If anything could count as a game, then nothing is a game.

Whenever I encounter this First Word/ Last Word argmument, I always try to explain that both forms of art build on each other. Abstractionists spur and inspire Formalists, and Formalists provide boundaries for Abstractionists to break. I have learned a lot about myself through video games, and I want the medium to go places where it hasn’t been and to accomplish what hasn’t before and become a medium that teaches us about life in ways that other mediums cannot. That will rely on the community’s and video game developers’ understanding  of what a video game truly is.

First and last word art are constantly battling one another in today’s society. New innovations and discoveries in technology create the basis for first word art, while improving upon these technologies, to create even more elaborate works, is central to last word art.

Personally, I don’t believe one side is more important than the other. The two forms of art are essentially the same thing in that they are a part of the same timeline of events and have no end: art is always “becoming” and “evolving”. In terms of technology, the advancement of tech allows for more diverse works of art to be made, which has a direct effect on culture (tech influences how society acts with the world/perception of the world is changed). For example, advancements made in VR (Virtual Reality) will change how entertainment (video games, movies, etc.) will be consumed. Already, our culture reflects this with more video games having compatibility with VR products such as the Oculus Rift. In turn, the needs and wants of society will push these technologies to further develop. Since people want to consume entertainment in a more realistic way, tech will improve to match these desires.

Technology is a tool that can be applied to almost every field, especially art. Technical novelty is ideal for producing first word art – the continued advancement of, for example, video technology, allows films to be producing in a totally new way. However, in order to produce last word art, the artist must rely on more tried-and-true methods of connecting with the audience. If a composition is ugly in the sense that it fails to resonate with the viewer, it doesn’t matter how “cool” the production process was. This principle is something I have to keep in mind in my own work, as I can tend to become so caught up in the minutiae– the sleekness of the code or the realism of the details of a drawing – that I forget to consider the piece as a whole work rather than a series of small, interworking parts. As modern life becomes more and more technical, and, judgement aside, a premium is placed on technical fields or skills, this lesson about using care when placing utility above form is one that society as a whole should be sure to consider, lest we end up in a very boring world.

I found the “First word Art / Last word Art” incredibly insightful, even after, or perhaps especially because I read it last year as a freshman. Reading it again has brought greater reflection over what I have learned in the past year and personal changes in mindset and experience.

If I were asked last year, “where do you locate your interests along this spectrum [of art as something entirely novel or art as refining whats existing]?” I most definitely would have answered “last word” art. The underlying reasons would be somewhat conflicted but would mostly have stemmed from having a very traditional fine arts background. Having honed technical skills in traditional media and aesthetics for over a decade, I took no small amount of pride in the hard earned technical skill behind my art pieces. The sort of “first word art” pieces (like Dadaism or most especially John Cage’s performance pieces) definitely grated on me. Whether it was simply jealousy or an actual ideological offense I cannot say – only that it felt that “first word art” flippantly disregarded or perhaps in some cases negated the hard earned technical skill I had spent so long striving for in an effort to achieve “last word” art.

But I’ve come to think that valuing technical skill so highly in art brings about a curious dilemma. Where is the line between artist and artisan? For the artisan, technical excellence and refinement of an established product (with a unique personal touches that still lie within the box) is what makes what they do valuable. But how much distance does that establish between them and a very complex…machine? Now with technology able to make unique one of a kind products with mass produced efficiency….where does the artisan stand?

Within that context, the performance art of John Cage could be arguably valued more highly as art than an artisan piece because, ironically, however fleeting his pieces are, the impact they have has so much more longevity. And this brings me to the crux of my rambling – I think my interests are in how much ‘art’ might effectively engage people emotionally, intellectually and aesthetically through the ages. In this sense, I have yet to to determine where exactly on that spectrum my particular interest would be.

We might aspire to make stuff of lasting importance, but when our work is technologically novel, it doesn’t always age well. Discuss

The article certainly casts an interesting light on new media arts that use novel technology as their medium. I think the differentiation between first word art and something that simply shows off new technology for technologies sake, is that the piece important is using technology as a medium – wherein the novelty of the tech is not the main focus of the piece but rather something that augments the aesthetic and poetic expression and intent behind it – doing so lends some longevity to technologically novel pieces….though it is more difficult to say when the selling point of a piece is what sort of experience it invokes within the viewer.

What are some ways in which new technologies shape culture?

Technological advances are the underlying reason to nearly every cultural difference between generation Z and generation X. Take for example something simple like emails. From a generation of paper post, emails have a structure and a formality to them. There is a brief introduction/some small talk to transition into the meat of the message whereas generation Z communicates in brief staccatos. The overworking and abuse of workers prevalent through out the gilded age was largely enabled by light bulbs – workers could now work past sundown.

An example for culture changing technology has plenty of historical precedents. Nomadic viking culture lead to greater ship craft; agricultural Rome allowed for greater architectural achievements; sedentary civilizations developed longer lasting physical record taking methods (chinese and paper), etc.

This piece introduced a fascinating dichotomy for me to explore my own creative practice, but imposed a rather strict binary on types of artistic endeavors. Coming from experience in screen-based design, where it’s almost a given that your work will be outdated both aesthetically and technically within 3 years, I’ve naturally carried over that sense of currency to the more experimental work I do, anticipating that it will not ‘stand the test of time’ or become remembered as ‘last word art’. I rarely if ever question the longevity of my digital work because in many ways, so much of that is out of my control. The technologies that are essential to consume the work could be abandoned in favor of new ones or be patched with new features rendering my work unviewable. Additionally, in my work I’m naturally much more inclined towards diverse explorations of disciplines and ideas and have trouble gaining mastery in any one area, which I believe to be a prerequisite of ‘last word art’. While those two things push me towards the ‘first word’ side of the spectrum, I certainly still care about aesthetics and craft, and should put more thought into how I archive the things I make. I shy away from the sentiment that ‘first word art’ has to be concerned with novelty or at least be aware of it’s newness, and think the best art straddles this spectrum, bringing in new elements, techniques, or approaches, but demonstrating appropriate grace and consideration in its form.

What does it mean when an artist does something that has “already been done”? When someone says something has “already been done”, I think that in most cases it means that the newer work that has been created was not effective in making a novel perspective accessible to an audience. The critic who claims that what the newer work has touched on has “already been done” is not pushed to feel that the newer work is bringing forth an alternate perspective of a previously discussed subject. This new work might have new components that an old work did not have, but if these components are just bells and whistles rather than significant parts that guide the audience towards a moment of insight, a visceral reaction, or whatever it might be that makes the newer piece important (despite the fact that the work’s old relative still lives on), then the new work has failed somehow. This is relevant to creating works that are technologically novel. If the role of the technology does not effectively help an audience reach something past the surface of the work, then the technology might be unnecessary or might serve a better purpose if used differently.

I do not think that it is pointless to continue a conversation that a “first word artist” has started, as perhaps what made the artist’s “first word art” so significant is that it initiated a conversation that was worth continuing. By adding to this conversation, one is not merely “doing something that has been done before”.  One is attempting to explore this conversation in a way that has not been explored before, answer a question, or create a new question from an old one- all of which are certainly worthwhile. I do not think that it is necessary to recreate the wheel in order to reach an idea which is novel. We stand on the shoulders of other artists, even if those other artists include individuals who created work within a cultural interim that existed between “us” and the “first word artists” or “us” and the “last word artists”.

With this being said, I have thought of some questions to consider when further examining Brad’s idea of “last word art”. Does this “last word art,” need to be created within the time frame of a specific art movement (perhaps an art movement that was started by a “first word art”) in order to be considered “last word art”? What are the constraints (if any) a work must fit into in order to be considered “last word art”? Is there a window period that still allows other artists to challenge a potential “last word art” so that their work can be considered “last word art” within that specific movement (making the position “last word art” tentative during this window period)?