I found Naimark's short essay on "first word art" and "last word art" interesting and novel as I had never previously considered why it mattered when artworks are deemed experimental and new or just a continuation within well-known territory. Personally, I'm not quite sure where my interests lie along this spectrum. I think it's daring to create something entirely new and although it may be exciting, the fact that nothing else like it exists seems to pose a challenge within its creation. To me, it seems that the world has been inundated with "new" ideas and paradoxically, nothing seems truly "new" anymore. Although the author mentions that some believe that "last word art" must not really be art because it is nothing never-before-seen, I would have to disagree because I think artists can always find ways to evolve an existing idea, adapting to our ever-changing environments. Our society constantly demands artists and designers to create something novel yet this request is nothing new. Quick, bold ideas that change every quarter seem to be most desirable within technology whereas the art world generally likes to cling onto the work of the past. Thus the middle-ground between these two worlds must be an environment in which we are heavily influenced by past ideas while at the same time, being driven to create something entirely new.