There are a extensive amount of third party endorsements of both Art X and the subsequent Basic Art Courses designed by Breithaupt. Despite the public’s continuing interest these programs were eventually discontinued. As the school moved on to new curricula and to a new building, the memories began to fade. While new instructors were eager to try teaching in their own ways, technology has continued to improve making the tools of 16mm film and reel-to-reel tape obsolete. During the fifties Jackson Pollack’s action paintings dominated the art world conversations and the sixties ushered in many works in film and performance that were in some ways divorced from self-referential and hand-touched art history. 

However, there has been renewed interest in modernism in contemporary America. Although technology continues to rapidly change, the theories and methods of the Art X experiment remain both valid and useful. The greatest challenges to implementing the Art X model into classrooms in primary schools and beyond was the prohibitive cost and the public’s mistrust of new methods. These issues have been effectively eradicated through improvement and time. By employing new equipment in the spirit of the first multimedia experiment, there is every reason to expect great success in future teaching.

The harshest criticism of Art X and its derivative work is that it was before its time. The efforts of 1952 was a splashy show which inspired some current work in tooled education, but it ultimately ran its course. While a direct lineage has been broken, there is now renewed interest as time and progress has caught up to the vision. There are two key conditions which make a rexamination of these past methods timely.

The access to technology is now mitigated. Access to movie making used to be a prohibitively expensive and likewise a rare practive. Likewise, the public was generally wary of relying on technology, something that has certainly changed.

The politics have changed as well. Once upon a time, Jackson Pollock's action paintings seemed to diminish the usefulness of art history lessons in a drawing class. However, just as Pollock's own painting resorted to figural subject matters, the pendulum has swung back to embrace studio traditions. The  art x methods were designed to present eternal qualities of art, they were falsely considered passe. There are still glimpses of Art X in the educational films shown in classrooms today, but the lasting impressions made on yesterday's teachers is not enough.

The biggest lesson to be concluded from the University of Georgia's experiment is that a design team employed in the service of an art school yields great results. The model is a sound launching pad for a similar system today.

Biographers of Charles Eames and George Nelson often refer to their education as meandering towards an unknown career. They simply pursued excellence, but in retrospect Art X was a meaningful context to their work. They pursued a streamlining of the design process begining with a productive means of teaching designers their craft and their duty.

Eames and Nelson’s style of lecture: There is something different in the way George Nelson and Charles Eames scripted their lectures. Each designer had a different way of thinking, background and goals so naturally they executed in different ways.

Their methods were specific to their medium, their message included the images and the narration as well as music and staging. Their lecture scripts are a useful way to compare their styles. The more traditional of the two was Nelson, who phrased his 30 minute lesson with the same manner as his architectural essays.

Nelson had an ironic sense of humor that bodly described the way things were and the way they should be without mincing words. He used specific examples and made direct observations. He would uncover every relevant detail of his subject. Nelson's was a type of exhaustive journalistic investigation.

The Eames method allowed an element of poety in their presentation. Their scripts involved multiple speakers, mainly the overlap of a male and a female voice. Their words blur the line between dialogue and monologue, where they alternatively finish each other sentences or seem to be taking turns making distinct points. There is some ambiguity as to where one sentence ends and another begins, and consequently where one idea begins and another ends. The Eames script most closely resembles an animated discussion between experts, while the Nelson script more resembles an Oxford lecture.

The origin of their distinct styles can be attributed to their professional backgrounds. Eames worked for Hollywood and established his own studio in which he had a large amount of personal freedom. Concurrently, Nelson cut his teeth as a magazine essayist, and was administrator of a large privately owned company. Their experiences in communication were both considerable, but their approach reflected their needs. Nelson needed to describe industrial plans and interact with retailers and technicians. Charles and Ray Eames would both artists and inventors.

Nelson’s biographer Abercrombie has made it clear that Nelson was a writer first in his own mind. His friend Charles was a Designer first. The innovative aspects of Art X owed much to Charles’ relative lack of writing experience. In a way, Charles produced his lesson as a type of focused conversation rather than a straight lecture hoping to mirror a student's thought mental process.

Dr. Breithaupt and Vince Dieball continued the work of Nelson and Eames populating their example with new subjects and examples for their beginning art classes.

Bill Paul had a unique experience as both a student and teacher of Art X methods. Like Olsen, he had not been around for the original demonstrations. Paul was signifigantly, Breithaupt’s graduate assistant. He had the experience of undergoing a complete BFA experience at another school before undergoing Art X classes. His opinion was that the method was interesting but silly. As the program had devolved at this point to a loose collection of slides and boxed up equipment, it was a turning point for the basic art courses by the time he retired as a teacher.

Richard J. Olsen- an instructor that came to take over teaching UGA's basic art courses, had to find ways to incorporate the existing tools left over by preceding instructors into his daily lessons. In some ways, his lectures became more improvisational focusing on the immersive elements and perceptual learning by doing aspects of the program.

Lamar Dodd noticed a shift in this school he had helped build. In a letter to the University written in 1970, Dodd pleaded for a return to form. There is a striking shift in the Academic Reports from glowingly referring to the pioneer days as an evergreen ideal instead of something to be avoided in the eighties. Ten years after the General Education Board Grant concluded, Dodd found the Department of Art wounded by reduced budgets, increased enrollment, and more bureaucratic red tape than ever before. These issues prevented the bold strokes that had first made the program so successful.

The Fine Arts departments of Harvard University and the Chicago Institute of Art had lauded UGA’s old approach to art teaching. According to Dodd,“This approach was based on two premises: first, a spirit of adventure and, second, a desire to innovate a sound art program within what then was considered to be a typical and traditional Southern state university."

As an event Art X brough a flash of national attention and prestige to Lamar Dodd's school. It was followed by a second boom as instructors Breithaupt and Dieball developed their curriculum. Today, the art program of the University of Georgia is considered among the best in the country, but little of its origins are recalled even among its own staff.